Sitting of 5 December 1996

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]
Oral Answers to Questions
  HOME DEPARTMENT

    Young Offenders
    Mr. Sheerman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the level of success in the rehabilitation of young offenders who receive a custodial sentence. [6148]
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Maclean): In 1995, the Prison Service commissioned research to identify measures of behaviour and attitudinal change that could be used to assess the effectiveness of regimes to reduce reconviction. Those measures identified are now being tested at six establishments, and the results will be available early next year.
    Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister examine the results of that research and react to it positively and intelligently? Many hon. Members who are concerned about youth crime were disturbed by his reaction to the Audit Commission's recent study of that issue. That dismissal of a perceptive and intelligent review of the youth justice system and what it means for the average person in this country—particularly the victims of crime—did no one in the Government any credit.
    Mr. Maclean: The hon. Gentleman misses the point entirely. He asked about the measures that we are taking in young offender institutions to ensure that young offenders are rehabilitated upon their release into the community. Of course we shall look carefully and intelligently at the excellent pilot projects taking place. All YOIs hold courses on anger management, cognitive skills, addressing offending behaviour and drugs courses. Much work is going on inside prisons for youngsters who have been sentenced by the courts. I was critical of aspects of the Audit Commission's report—particularly the Opposition's welcome for it—because it suggested alternative activities for youngsters which would mean that they would never get to court in the first place and never benefit from the courses that we are now evaluating.
    Mr. Marlow: My right hon. Friend will know that there is widespread feeling in this country that corporal punishment would be more effective than a spell inside
    1186
    for many young people, who often leave prison more expert in the ways of crime than when they entered. What does my right hon. Friend think about that?
    Mr. Maclean: I have no proposals to reintroduce corporal punishment to any prisons or corrective establishments—or indeed to the House.

    Criminal Activity
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has been the change in the levels of criminal activity in recent years. [6149]
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Michael Howard): Recorded crime levels in the 12 months to June 1996 were 10 per cent. lower than three years ago. That is a fall of more than half a million offences—the biggest continuous fall over three years since records were first kept in 1876. Crime is still far too high and there is much more to be done, but I congratulate the police on their considerable recent success.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: I thank the Home Secretary for those figures. I was handed a remarkable statistic this morning, which I ask him to confirm. Is it true that only one in 50 recorded crimes leads to a conviction? If so, does it not suggest a total breakdown of law and order in the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is really interested in such matters, he should congratulate the police in Cumbria, who have a 40 per cent. record of clearing up crime. If he is really interested in improving those statistics, he will join us in reforms—such as changing the right to silence—which were opposed root and branch by the Opposition. Research on the effect of those changes shows that the number of suspects refusing to answer questions has almost halved. Will the hon. Gentleman support us in those changes?
    Mr. Brazier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the latest British crime survey—which is wholly independent of Government figures—showed the first drop in burglaries since figures were compiled? Does he further agree that we can assist the police in converting successful clear-ups into successful convictions by giving them greater powers? Will he confirm that changes to the right to silence and the granting of other powers through the national data bank have greatly enhanced the chances of the police converting crimes into convictions?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. He is absolutely right. We must ensure that everyone is totally aware of the extent to which the Opposition have voted against, blocked and obstructed those increases in powers. When we changed the right to silence, the right hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), now Leader of the Opposition, described the change as "an injustice" when he opposed it and led his party into the Division Lobby against it time after time. That is the truth of the Opposition's attitude to the effective way of improving the powers of the police to deal with crime.
    Mr. Hardy: After supervising the largest increase in crime in recorded history in the United Kingdom, is it not

    1187
    to be expected that a modest increase will have taken place, even though the vast majority of people in the country will not believe it? Does the Secretary of State not accept that the scale of crime that affects communities like mine is such that more than half the news content of local newspapers week after week is devoted to crime, which to a large extent is caused by the economic and social policies of the Government?
    Mr. Howard: The last observation of the hon. Gentleman speaks volumes about the Opposition's attitude to crime. Crime, according to them, is caused not by criminals—those who break the law—but by economic and social conditions, which he attributes to the Government, overlooking the fact that, since the Conservatives have been in office, the average standard of living in this country, the average take-home pay of the average family, has increased by 40 per cent.
    Mr. Congdon: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that, to reinforce the welcome downward trend in burglary, it is important to show burglars that crime does not pay? Does he agree therefore that it is important to ensure that burglars—particularly repeat burglars—are given custodial sentences, and of a sufficient length? Does he further agree that the public will very much welcome the proposals in his Crime (Sentences) Bill?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with the point that my hon. Friend makes. It is, of course, why we propose and provide for in the Crime (Sentences) Bill minimum, mandatory sentences for anyone convicted of a third burglary. The truth of the matter is that far too many career burglars regard a short spell in prison as nothing more than an occupational hazard. We have to change the terms of trade against career burglars. We have to ensure that they know what to expect if they continue their career in crime. That is what the provisions in the Crime (Sentences) Bill will achieve.

    Prisons (Drug Abuse)
    Mr. Flynn: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what new proposals he has to reduce illegal drug use in prison. [6150]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): We are rapidly increasing the number of drug treatment programmes in prisons. We have introduced mandatory drug testing in every prison and are continuing to develop a battery of other measures to control the supply of drugs into prisons.
    Mr. Flynn: Will the Minister, uniquely, listen to the question that I am about to ask and give me an answer based on the question, not on something that he prepared earlier?
    Many of the commendable programmes that the Government are using to reduce the use of illegal drugs in prison depend on moving prisoners from the use of illegal drugs to the use of medicinal drugs. The Minister knows the damage caused by medicinal drugs. Ten times as many people are addicted to medicinal drugs than to illegal drugs, and more people die from methadone use than from heroin use. His Department refuses to give any
    1188
    figures on the use of medicinal drugs in prison. Is it not possible that people are being moved from an illegal non-addictive drug to a legal, addictive medicinal drug?
    Will the Minister undertake to inquire into the use of medicinal drugs in prison and report to the House?
    Mr. Sackville: There are 59 different drug programmes in prisons. They vary from those that use methadone right through to total abstinence programmes, such as the Rehabilitation of Addicted Prisoners Trust—RAPt—programmes, in Coldingley, Downview, Pentonville and Wandsworth, which use no medicinal drugs following detoxification. We are piloting various drug treatment programmes. The hon. Gentleman may have a preference for those that do not use substitutes, but we have to use all the treatments that exist in getting people off drugs, because there is no single answer to that problem.
    Mr. Rathbone: Does my hon. Friend accept that, whatever admirable efforts are made to reduce the use of drugs in prisons, it is equally important to provide support services for prisoners who have given up drugs during their time in prison and have returned to the normal world outside? Will he encourage such steps?
    Mr. Sackville: I agree with my hon. Friend. Programmes such as Phoenix house provide halfway houses, treatment and support for people coming out of prison. It is no use people succeeding in a drug-free wing, if they then go back to their communities and take drugs. My hon. Friend's point is well taken.
    Mr. George Howarth: Will the Minister acknowledge that a mandatory drug test can detect cannabis after up to 28 days, whereas heroin and cocaine are held in the bloodstream for two to four days? There is a perverse incentive for people to take the latter drugs. Can he confirm that, between March and September, the number of positive tests for opiates increased by 27 per cent., which amounts to 3,500 people? Does he agree that we need more initiatives in the Prison Service, such as the one at Downview, to deal with these serious problems?
    Mr. Sackville: I have been told that we should be conducting hair tests rather than urine tests for that reason. The best medical advice is that it is 10 days for cannabis and five days for opiates, but our figures do not show a switch from cannabis to opiates.

    Knives (Stop-and-search Powers)
    Sir Michael Shersby: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is his policy towards further extending the powers of the police to stop and search for knives without time or geographical restrictions; and if he will make a statement. [6151]
    Mr. Howard: A police officer may stop and search anyone if he has reasonable grounds for suspecting that he will find stolen or prohibited articles, such as a knife. We intend to amend the code of practice under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 to make it clear that reasonable suspicion includes intelligence that shows that members of a group or gang habitually carry knives. We have also proposed that police powers should be extended,

    1189
    so that they can stop and search anyone in a particular area if they reasonably believe that people are carrying knives in that area. Those powers would have to be authorised by an officer of at least inspector rank for a maximum period of 48 hours.
    Sir Michael Shersby: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that a change to 48 hours and to authorisation by an officer of the rank of inspector in a area where violence is suspected will be welcome, and will make a substantial contribution towards dealing with the difficult problem of knives in the community?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I am aware that police associations have welcomed the proposals as a significantly useful reinforcement to their powers, which will enable them the more effectively to protect the public.
    Mr. Llwyd: That proposal is all very well—I am sure that it will be a useful addition—but what do the Government intend to do about the availability of knives to the public? What is the latest Government thinking on the private Member's Bill to be presented to the House a week on Friday? Will the Home Secretary please tell the House and the general public what is being done about the availability of such knives?
    Mr. Howard: We have suggested to the promoter of that private Member's Bill an excellent package to deal with the problem. I hope that he will adopt those proposals and include them in his Bill. If he does so, he will have our full support.
    Sir Irvine Patnick: Will my right hon. and learned Friend deal with the problems associated with Stanley knives? It is not only the length and type of knife that matters. Stanley knives can inflict dangerous injuries. How will stop-and-search powers deal with them'? If I were at a dance with a Stanley knife in my pocket, I could be a suspect, but what about people walking in the street?
    Mr. Howard: In the circumstances that I identified in my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Sir M. Shersby), the police would have extra powers to search. We have substantially increased the penalties for people who carry knives in public without lawful excuse. We recently embarked on an extensive publicity campaign to ensure that everyone knows that those powers exist, and that if they continue to carry knives in public without a lawful excuse, they run the risk of spending a substantial period in prison. We urge people not to carry knives in public without lawful excuse, so as not to run that risk.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Gunnell: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the recommendations of the Audit Commission on the prevention of crime contained in its report "Misspent Youth". [6152]
    Mr. Maclean: The Government are determined to do all that they can to prevent children turning to crime. However, they do not accept the Audit Commission's
    1190
    recommendation that local authorities be given an enhanced role in dealing with juvenile criminals. Punishment must be a matter for the police, the probation service and the courts.
    Mr. Gunnell: Does the Minister agree with the Audit Commission's core findings that our youth justice system is inefficient, not working properly and in urgent need of reform? If he is aware of the initiatives that West and South Yorkshire police have taken with regard to young people and crime, will he ensure that such preventive measures are co-ordinated, expanded and resourced, as the Audit Commission recommends? Or are the commission's recommendations too close to Labour party policy for him to accept good advice when he gets it, as would seem to be the case?
    Mr. Maclean: I am not surprised that the Labour party grasped at the suggestion that social workers, rather than the courts, be put in charge of justice. I can accept a large number of the Audit Commission's analyses of the problem. What was rather disappointing, naive and unconvincing was its solution, which was to hive people away from the courts and do more cautioning. We are keen on cautioning for first-time offenders because that has about an 80 per cent. success rate. It is naive, however, to believe that a large pool of first-time offenders are wrongly going to court and could be hived off and cautioned instead. That is nonsense and, because the Audit Commission got that wrong, it rather undermines its credibility in the matter.
    Dr. Twinn: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a serious aspect of youth crime is that many of the crimes committed by repeat offenders take place while they are waiting for their cases to go to court? More of those young people should be remanded in secure places, where they could perhaps start treatment for crack and other addictions, rather than waiting for months and repeating their crimes while in the care of local authorities.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right, but the Opposition voted against our proposals to lock up habitual young offenders when they voted against our proposals for secure training centres. It is not merely that the Opposition vote against measures that would mean people being locked up; they even vote against community punishments. When we increased community sentences to 240 hours, the Opposition voted to cut them to 120. When we introduced curfew orders for the first time, they opposed that. The Opposition are pretending that they are worried about youth crime, but they have voted and argued against all that we have been trying to do to crack down on young offenders.
    Mr. Straw: Why does the Minister not accept that, of all his and the Government's many failures on law and order, nowhere have they failed more than on youth crime? Is it not astonishing that, in the past 10 years, while the number of crimes committed by youngsters has shot up, the number dealt with by the police and courts has dropped alarmingly, delays have worsened, costs increased and the number of secure accommodation places decreased? Instead of all this bluster, why does the Minister not accept that the Audit Commission report confirms the urgent need for Labour's pledge to halve the

    1191
    time that it takes to bring persistent young offenders to court—the Minister laughs at that pledge and the country can see him laughing, complicit in the delays, which have got worse in the past 10 years—and for our proposals to ensure that prompt and effective action is taken to punish, divert and deter young offenders? Or is the Minister going to continue to do nothing, so that too many youngsters stay out of control, blighting their lives and causing misery for thousands of members of the public?
    Mr. Maclean: That was a good example of bluster if I ever heard one in this House. The reason why I was laughing and am still chuckling is that we have heard that that much-touted Labour pledge will halve the time that it takes to get kids to court, but the Opposition have not spelt out a single detail of how they will do it. They have not spelt out how they will make the defence move more quickly or how they will expedite the files. They have not spelt out a single detail on those matters.
    Through our pre-trial issues steering group, we have taken practical action to expedite files and to get people, including juveniles, to trial faster. The Magistrates Association has recently announced that it will bring to trial early youngsters who are up on multiple charges, and it will bring them to trial for the first offence.
    If the hon. Gentleman has been so very worried about juvenile crime, I can conclude only that he has been away from the House for far too long. He voted against all the measures that we have taken to deal with juvenile crime. He voted against community sentences and curfew orders, and he even voted against making parents attend court in all circumstances. Labour even voted to cut the time required to be spent at an attendance centre, from 36 to 24 hours. So much for being concerned about juvenile criminals.

    Crime (Guns)
    Mr. Merchant: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who took a gun to a crime have been given a life sentence since 1989. [6153]
    Mr. Howard: Some 123 persons were given a life sentence for homicide offences initially recorded in the years 1989–95, in which the method of killing was shooting. Information for other offences is not available separately.
    Mr. Merchant: I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for that reply. Does he agree that taking a gun to a crime is a very serious matter, and that, therefore, every effort must be made to crack down on that type of crime? Does he agree that the tough measures included in his Crime (Sentences) Bill will help stamp out second offences?
    Mr. Howard: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful for his support. Automatic life sentences for those who commit a second serious violent offence will bring home to people the importance of not committing such offences. More importantly, they will protect the public by ensuring that no one who does commit such an offence is released unless and until an assessment has been made of whether they still pose a risk to the public. If they do not pose a risk, they will be released, but if
    1192
    they still pose a risk, they will not be released—even if that means that they will spend the rest of their lives in prison.
    Mr. John Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many criminals who have used a gun to threaten with intent have received a life sentence in each of the past six years. [6154]
    Mr. Howard: It is an offence under the firearms Acts, subject to a maximum sentence of life imprisonment, to be in possession of a firearm with intent to commit an indictable offence. In the six years from 1990–95, 717 people were convicted of that offence in England and Wales, and 420 of them were imprisoned, with an average sentence of 36 months. None was sentenced to life imprisonment.
    Mr. Marshall: Will my right hon. and learned Friend accept my thanks for that answer, which explains the need for his Crime (Sentences) Bill? His Bill will ensure that persistent and dangerous offenders are properly punished, and that the law-abiding majority are properly protected. Should not his Bill be welcomed by all those who claim to be tough on crime?
    Mr. Howard: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, and I entirely agree with him. We still await the details of the Labour party's response to those proposals in the crime Bill, although we know that it will oppose many aspects of my proposals. We shall leave no stone unturned as we remind the public of the proposals that we intend to put in place, which are being constantly blocked by the Labour party.

    European Court of Human Rights
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what proposals he has for limiting the role of the European Court of Human Rights in overruling decisions of the British courts and the Westminster Parliament. [6155]
    Mr. Howard: The Government have made proposals to improve the working of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission of Human Rights. Those proposals are designed to improve court procedures to provide a high standard among judges appointed to the court, and to ensure that proper weight is given—through the doctrine of the margin of appreciation—to the national character, traditions, religious beliefs and moral values of the countries that are signatories to the convention.
    Sir Ivan Lawrence: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that the British people are getting fed up with being told what to do by that interfering foreign court, which does not appear to know or care about British culture and tradition? Will he reconsider the Government's refusal to incorporate the European convention on human rights into British law, and cheer the British people by extending the power of British courts over British business, rather than extending that of the European Court?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. and learned Friend will not be surprised to hear that I have considerable sympathy with

    1193
    the first part of his question. I believe that the best way forward is to reform the court in the way in which we are seeking to do, rather than incorporate the convention into our domestic law, which would require our courts to make political judgments about a wide range of matters that are at present determined by our elected and democratically accountable Parliament. Such judgments are the proper function of Parliament, not the courts.
    Mr. Dalyell: The Home Secretary said just now that he had sympathy with the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), who described the European Court of Human Rights as an "interfering foreign court". Is that really the Government's view?
    Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman does not appreciate the immense frustration that that court's recent decisions have given rise to up and down the country, he is severely misjudging the mood of the people.
    Mr. Garnier: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the European Court of Human Rights has nothing whatever to do with the European Union or the European Court of Justice? Will he also confirm that if we were—unwisely—to incorporate the convention on human rights into British law, it would greatly inhibit the freedom of the press? Does he not think that if we were to introduce any laws on, for example, the invasion of privacy, they should be dealt with by the House and not introduced by some other method?
    Mr. Howard: As I said in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence), I certainly agree that such matters should be decided in this democratically accountable House and the other place, and not in the European Court of Human Rights. I can certainly confirm that the answer to the first question asked by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier) is that, indeed, the European Court of Human Rights has nothing to do with the European Union.
    Mr. Beith: If the Home Secretary thinks that the European Court of Human Rights is an interfering foreign court, why are British judges still sent to take part in it? Does he realise that, if the court is made less effective, he will be denying human rights not only to British citizens but to citizens of all signatory countries in the Council of Europe, who are currently protected by it? Does he recognise that incorporation would assist in ensuring that the judgments based on the European convention fitted this country's traditions and character?
    Mr. Howard: I do not think that the reforms advocated by the Government would in any way make the court less effective. If anything, they might make it more effective—but within proper parameters. A number of recent decisions of that court—not least the one it reached on the killing in Gibraltar—have caused widespread offence in this country. If the right hon. Gentleman and his party do not recognise that fact, they too are guilty of a severe misjudgment of the mood of the people.
    Mr. Jacques Arnold: Should we not bear it in mind that the European convention on human rights was set up at a time when individuals in eastern Europe were being
    1194
    shipped off to the gulags under their communist Governments? Should we not also bear it in mind that the convention was set up due to fears that countries such as France and Italy would fall under communist rule and that therefore a means of safeguarding individuals was necessary? Given the collapse of communism and that threat to human rights, is not the convention and its court superfluous and should it not be scrapped?
    Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is right about the background of circumstances against which the convention and the court were set up. Those who set the court up would be pretty astonished at some of the judgments that it has made in recent years. I do not, however, entirely follow my hon. Friend along the road to the conclusion that he has identified because I think that it is possible for us to reform the court. We have put on the table specific proposals to achieve that objective, which I very much hope will be accepted.
    Mr. Henderson: I welcome the conversion of the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir I. Lawrence) to the policy view that the European convention on human rights should be incorporated into British law. He, like the Labour party, understands that the main problem is not that European courts are overruling British courts but that British citizens have inadequate access to any court to establish human rights.
    It takes too long to go to Europe and costs too much. On this Thursday—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I have not yet heard a question from the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Henderson: Here comes a question.
    Madam Speaker: Now.
    Mr. Henderson: Now. In the week before United Nations Human Rights Day next Tuesday, should not patriotic parties support Labour's policy that human rights should come home?
    Mr. Howard: That would lead to the disadvantages that I identified in answer to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton, who, long before the Labour party, came to the opinion that the convention should be incorporated. The assertions in the lengthy introduction to the hon. Gentleman's question about the access of citizens of this country to our courts were preposterous. Our courts afford full protection for human rights.

    Prisoners (Sentences)
    Mr. Sumberg: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to ensure that convicted prisoners serve their full sentence. [6156]
    Mr. Maclean: I believe that there should be greater honesty in sentencing. Accordingly, the Crime (Sentences) Bill contains provisions that will ensure that the sentence actually served matches more closely the sentence imposed by the court.
    Mr. Sumberg: May I congratulate my right hon. Friend on those excellent proposals, which will ensure

    1195
    that those who commit crimes serve a full sentence? Do not those proposals prove that the Government have responded to widespread public concern on the issue, in contrast to Labour Members, who talk tough in soundbites, but for ever abstain on or vote against measures that will put criminals behind bars?
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. The core elements of the Bill will bring in mandatory minimum sentences for persistent burglars and for those who deal in the worst drugs, which are killing and destroying our children, and life sentences for hardened killers and rapists. The Labour party decided to abstain. It is scared to vote for the proposals, but it dare not vote against them. Labour Members sit there, not having an opinion.
    Mr. Winnick: Is it not important that prisoners should be convicted in the first place? Is the Minister aware that my constituent, Raghbir Singh, was held in prison for 20 months without a charge being made against him? He was released on Monday afternoon, after I had repeatedly raised the matter, only because of the decision of the European Court of Human Rights—an institution that Tory Members have today criticised. If it were not for that decision last Friday, my constituent would, quite possibly, have remained in prison for months or years to come without charge.
    Mr. Maclean: I do not accept that the detention of those regarded as a threat to our national security should be determined by a foreign court.
    Mr. John Greenway: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, to have honesty in sentencing, we must reform the present arrangements on how time served on remand is taken into account when calculating a prisoner's sentence? Does my right hon. Friend agree that the recent decision on concurrent sentences defies logic? Will he confirm that the Crime (Sentences) Bill will be used to put that right?
    Mr. Maclean: It is a source of concern that a course of action that has been confirmed by four court judgments since 1967 should be overturned by another court judgment. However, I confirm that the relevant measures in the Crime (Sentences) Bill have been passed in Committee, so we shall now have suitable powers to make the amending regulations.

    Crimes (Convictions)
    Mr. Pope: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate his Department has made of the percentage of crimes which ended in a conviction in (a) 1993 and (b) 1995. [6157]
    Mr. Maclean: About 6 per cent., but the percentage for more serious offences was very much higher. Many of those convicted will have been responsible for other crimes.
    Mr. Pope: According to the British crime survey, the number of offences went up by 400,000 and the number
    1196
    of convictions went down by 13,000. Does it not take a special kind of incompetence to reduce convictions at a time of soaring crime?
    Mr. Maclean: No, but it takes a certain kind of hypocrisy for a party to complain about those things and then vote against all the measures that we have put forward to deal with them.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: How many of the crimes involved the use of legally owned handguns?
    Mr. Maclean: Offhand, I cannot give my hon. Friend that figure, but I shall happily do so and, if necessary, lay the answer before the House. I speculate that the figure is very small indeed.
    Mr. Michael: Can we now have some honesty on crime figures from the Minister? Last month, the Home Secretary said that 6 per cent. of crimes ended up in punishment by a court. That would be bad enough; but, since then, the Government have had to admit to the House that only 2 per cent. of crimes ended in a conviction in 1993, and suddenly it is too expensive to work out the figures for last year. Will the Minister now accept the truth? The Government's British crime survey shows that crime is up, although fewer crimes are reported. The right hon. Gentleman's parliamentary replies show that convictions are down. No longer does one in 50 crimes end in punishment; now—as confirmed to me by the House of Commons Library analysis today—only one in 54 crimes ends in punishment by a court. Will the Minister face up to his responsibility for that harsh reality?
    Mr. Maclean: More bluster to hide the voting record. The conviction rate depends on two crucial things. The first is the rules of law under which the courts have to operate; every time we have tried to change the balance more in favour of the victim, such as by removing the right to silence, the Opposition vote against it.
    The conviction rate also depends on the police catching criminals. When the Labour party left office, we were 8,500 officers under strength. We have had to recruit those 8,500 officers and 7,000 more. I can tell the House that we now have 2,000 more constables than we did at the time of the general election. We are recruiting more police officers, because that is one of the best ways to improve our conviction rate in future.
    Mr. Day: Will my right hon. Friend refuse to listen to the siren voices of Opposition Members and the judiciary who, between them, have let down the people of this country by ensuring that criminals who commit major crimes that threaten people's everyday lives do not spend sufficient time in prison and are not, in the public's eyes, punished? Although rehabilitation is important, the public know that rapists cannot rape, muggers cannot mug and robbers cannot rob when they are in gaol.
    Mr. Maclean: My hon. Friend is right. Siren voices can be rather attractive, but the Opposition's voices are not siren but rather shifty. They are shifty, because they are saying one thing now but do another when they go through the Lobbies. The Labour party voted against the Criminal Justice Act 1991, the Criminal Justice Act 1988,

    1197
    reforming the right of silence, imposing longer community sentences and imposing curfew orders. With that criminal record to its name, the Labour party has no credibility today in claiming that it is tough on crime or tough on the causes of crime.

    Football Matches (Policing)
    Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will assess the adequacy of the policing of football matches. [6158]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Timothy Kirkhope): Policing of football matches is an operational matter for chief officers, but I am satisfied that it is done professionally and efficiently—the whole world saw the evidence of that during Euro 96.
    Mr. Banks: I hope that, this evening, the Minister will have a chance to watch the drama on Carlton Television about the Hillsborough disaster, because many football supporters are angry about what they see as the failure of policing at Hillsborough and the lies and cover-ups that followed. The Minister should be prepared to talk with the football clubs and the police to allow the clubs to have more of an input into the policing decisions in grounds. The police rely far too often on historical background for policing levels rather than on new technology, the new seating and the new arrangements in clubs. Will not the Minister allow the clubs to have greater involvement, because sometimes policing charges for football clubs are more than the gate receipts?
    Mr. Kirkhope: It is for the football clubs to discuss with the chief officers in their areas the nature and extent of policing both inside and outside the grounds. I am satisfied that there have been considerable developments since the Hillsborough disaster in 1989. Great progress has been made, and one has only to go to an excellent match—as I did on Sunday, when an excellent team beat the hon. Member's team 2-0—to see that the standards in grounds are now enormously high.

    Electronic Tagging
    Mr. David Evans: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of electronic tagging. [6159]
    Mr. Sackville: More than 230 offenders have now been sentenced and tagged under curfew orders. The trials show that the curfews are increasingly valued by the courts as a flexible and effective punishment.
    Mr. Evans: I thank the Minister for his reply. As the shambles opposite have got the number 22 on their minds, will my hon. Friend tell me whether on no fewer than 22 occasions they voted against every piece of legislation that we tried to introduce to put criminals inside, where they belong? Can he tell me whether tagging works in Barbados or on safari, because that is where that lot send the pint-sized Rambos to get their corrective training? Does tagging work in Barbados? That is what I want to know.
    Mr. Sackville: My hon. Friend can be assured that electronic tagging is a tough punishment, and goes down
    1198
    extremely badly with criminals, which is why the courts are imposing it for the upper end of the offences for which it is intended. I suspect that we shall hear many voices among the Opposition moaning that it is bad luck on the criminal.

  PRIME MINISTER

    EU Unemployment
    Sir Teddy Taylor: To ask the Prime Minister if he will raise at the next meeting of the European Council the level of unemployment in the EU. [6178]
    The Prime Minister (Mr. John Major): Yes, I expect to do so as part of the discussion on the intergovernmental conference.
    Sir Teddy Taylor: As unemployment in the rest of the European Union has risen by 5 million in five years, which means 3,000 individual human tragedies every day, and as Britain alone has falling unemployment, partly because of our exclusion from the exchange rate mechanism, does the Prime Minister appreciate why a growing percentage of people in Britain consider the European Union a rather inadequate organisation? In the light of those alarming figures, is he willing to consider the possibility of letting the people of Britain have a say in their future? Can he at least guarantee that, in any referendum on the European currency, the decision will be taken before sterling is linked in any way to the euro?
    The Prime Minister: As my hon. Friend says, unemployment is falling consistently across the United Kingdom, and is either rising or static in the rest of the European Union.
    On my Friend's main point, we have made a firm commitment to hold a referendum if the next Conservative Government recommend that Britain should join a single European currency in the next Parliament. I confirm to my hon. Friend that, if such a referendum were held, it would of course be held before sterling was linked in any way with any putative European currency. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor and I have often made clear, we do not intend to rejoin the so-called ERM mark 2, and would not wish to institute any policy of shadowing the euro.

    Engagements
    Mr. Beith: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6179]
    The Prime Minister: This morning, I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Beith: Is the Prime Minister seriously pressing ahead with Budget measures that would deprive between 7,000 and 10,000 ex-service people of their entitlement to war pensions, and cost thousands more their entitlement to benefit paid for deafness resulting from war service? It is only a few weeks since we saw disabled war pensioners

    1199
    determined to march, limp or be pushed in wheelchairs past the Cenotaph. Surely the Prime Minister has not forgotten them now.
    The Prime Minister: Of course not. I fear that the right hon. Gentleman has been misled by reports in The Guardian and by the conflation of two separate and distinct matters. The first involves proposals to simplify about 19 complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second concerns new independent medical advice on pensions paid for loss of hearing. The purpose of that independent advice is to determine what disabilities have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. Those changes were—[Interruption.] That independent medical advice is the normal way of dealing with these matters. It has invariably been accepted. It usually puts up entitlements—that has always been the case in the past. I know of no circumstance when it has not been accepted. It was discussed this morning with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, which will now consider the details.
    Sir Rhodes Boyson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is great rejoicing today in the knowledge that A-level standards will be retained and strengthened? Does he agree that that is one of many reforms introduced by the Government for the benefit of British education?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend speaks for many people, including many millions of parents. Standards are at the heart of the Government's policies on education and will remain so. Our national qualifications must remain at the highest standard, and A-levels are central to that.
    Mr. Blair: May I return the Prime Minister to the subject of war pensions? Future pensioners will lose as a result of the changes. Those changes to war pensions were described in the Government press release on Budget day as proposals
    "to simplify policy and procedures",
    whereas they actually mean £50 million-worth of cuts. Does the Prime Minister accept that that was inaccurate and misleading, and will he apologise to the British people for that deception?
    The Prime Minister: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong. If the House will permit me to repeat what I said to the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith), I shall take the Labour leader through it gently, so that he understands. Two issues have been run together in a simplistic and misleading way by The Guardian. If the right hon. Gentleman relies on The Guardian for his information, that explains why he is so often inaccurate in his questions.
    The first issue involves proposals to simplify complex measures. No pensioner will lose money as a result of that. The second is the way in which we have always dealt with independent medical advice concerning pensions. [Interruption.] Hon. Members shout. After some months, we have just accepted independent advice on emphysema, having been pressed to do so by the Opposition. We did so willingly. That is what we always do with independent
    1200
    medical advice and what we have done on this occasion. The purpose of the independent advice that we have always sought is to determine what disablements have been caused, so that people can be compensated accordingly. That is happening on this occasion—nothing different, no change. We are following the normal practice for dealing with these matters.
    Mr. Blair: Let me deal with each part in turn, so that the Prime Minister can answer each part. The first involves hearing disability. The Prime Minister says that the changes were made on independent medical advice. If the reason for the changes was independent medical advice, why were all his Social Security Ministers opposed to them, which they were, and why did not the Budget press release mention the fact that the changes reduced expenditure by £35 million?
    The second part involves the other changes that the Prime Minister mentioned. He says that they are merely a simplification. Are they on the basis of medical advice? Is that why widows' rent allowances are to be abolished for new cases? The Prime Minister shakes his head. Is that happening or not? Not issuing reminders to return claim forms—is that happening or not? Ceasing to issue copies of decisions to third parties—is that happening or not? Is the instruction "Do not direct appellant to Royal British Legion as their representative" correct or not? Instead of patronising comments about how we do not understand, will the Prime Minister deal, first, with the matter of medical advice and his Social Security Ministers and, secondly, with each of the points that I have made?
    The Prime Minister: As I told the right hon. Gentleman a moment ago, he has completely misunderstood what has happened. He has not seen the full range of correspondence, and as usual—despite his piety about a leak a week or so ago—he relies on leaked correspondence. If he had seen the correspondence, he would not have misunderstood the matter in the way he just has.
    I repeat: the right hon. Gentleman has got it wrong, and I hope that he will not pursue it. We are trying to simply the procedures, as that is the right thing to do in the interests of the taxpayer, as well as of the applicants and the recipients of benefits. If the right hon. Gentleman does not want to simplify procedures across government, no wonder he envisages expenditure rising under a Labour Government.
    Mr. Blair: If the right hon. Gentleman is unable to answer the specific points that were put to him, he will stand condemned out of his own mouth. I must ask him why—[HON. MEMBERS: "Question"]. This is a question—"why" is normally the start of a question. Why, if it is all just administrative procedures, does one Minister talk about a storm that is about to break about the Government's head?
    The Prime Minister indicated dissent.
    Mr. Blair: The Prime Minister shakes his head. A Minister said that. Why do the Government talk of "sweeteners"? They talk of these things because they know that they have been caught doing something shabby and mean-minded. If he cannot be trusted with British war pensioners, why should he be trusted at all?
    The Prime Minister: As is typical, the right hon. Gentleman has quoted out of context and wrongly, and he has drawn the wrong conclusion from what he has said. One day, he might find out what he is talking about before he starts to talk about it.
    Mr. Charles Wardle: My right hon. Friend knows that, when he vetoes the Commission's new proposals on borders—as Conservative Members know he will—the European Parliament has said that it will renew its action in the European Court. My right hon. Friend's own advisers say that the court will rule our borders unlawful, as the treaty now stands. Will he therefore explain to the House the contradiction, in that he says that our borders are not negotiable but his Ministers say that we will not break European law?
    The Prime Minister: We have made it clear to our European partners on innumerable occasions that we will not accept any form of treaty change that alters the sanctity of British borders. Treaty change will need to be by unanimity, and we will not give our consent to it. There should be no doubt among any of our European partners that we are not prepared to accept any change whatsoever to the present system of safeguarding Britain's borders and, hence, our immigration controls.
    Mr. McAvoy: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6180]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. McAvoy: Is the Prime Minister aware that his absent Chancellor of the Exchequer has been briefing journalists on the Prime Minister's failed attempt to change Government policy on Europe? Does he agree with the Chancellor, who has described the Prime Minister's failed attempt as a boomerang wrapped in high explosive which has blown up in the Prime Minister's face?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may know that I have a statement in my hand that denies the report to which he refers.
    Mr. Dover: Following the excellent Budget speech by the Chancellor last week, my right hon. Friend will have heard stupid statements from the Labour party about a lower basic rate of tax than 20p and lifting the ceiling for the 40 per cent. tax rate. Will not these unfounded pledges or promises—call them what you will—only give rise to higher taxation—
    Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the Prime Minister answers questions, not about the
    1202
    Opposition but on behalf of the Government. Perhaps the Prime Minister might turn the question around and attempt to answer it.
    The Prime Minister: It is certainly—[Interruption.] It is nice to welcome back the deputy leader of the Labour party. I thought that he was in Scotland answering focus groups.
    It is certainly the case that, in order to contain public expenditure and hold down taxation, many extremely difficult decisions have to be taken. We have taken those decisions and I acknowledge the difficulty of doing so.
    Mr. Faulds: Out of order.
    Madam Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister.
    The Prime Minister: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
    I think that the whole country understands the unlikelihood of any alternative Government taking such decisions.
    Mr. Skinner: To ask the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 5 December. [6181]
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Skinner: Can the Prime Minister tell us where he has hidden those economic jewels that he referred to in a speech last week? I went to the Treasury chest to find them and I found a big IOU that said that the country owed a £380 billion national debt which had doubled since the Prime Minister took office. There was another IOU showing a £19.5 billion public sector borrowing requirement shortfall.
    Then I met a bloke on the street with his head down. I said, "Are you looking for these economic jewels too?" He said, "No, I'm looking for work." In my opinion, the Government sold off the economic jewels along with all the silver that they sold off the other years.
    The Prime Minister: I hope that, when the hon. Gentleman was in the Treasury basement the other day, he did not leave a match behind him.
    As for our economic jewels, I invite the hon. Gentleman to find any other country with unemployment falling like ours, tax rates and growth at our level, growing exports. a narrowing trade gap and economic prospects as good as ours. He cannot do it, because there is not one. The chap he found looking for work would be joined by many others looking for work if the policies that the hon. Gentleman advocates were ever put into effect.

Business of the House
3.32 pm
Mrs. Ann Taylor: May I ask the Leader of the House for details of future business?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Tony Newton): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 9 DECEMBER—Second Reading of the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill.
TUESDAY 10 DECEMBER—Estimates Day [1st allotted day—1st Part]. There will be a debate on access to Government information. Details will be given in the Official Report.
Consideration of Lords amendments to the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill.
At 10 pm the House will be asked to agree the winter supplementary estimates and the vote on account.
Proceedings on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
WEDNESDAY 11 DECEMBER—The morning debate will be slightly different from the norm. Until 12.30 pm, debate on the first report from the Social Security Committee on unfunded pension liabilities in the European Union followed by a debate on the fourth report from the Environment Committee on World Trade and the Environment. Followed by debates on the motion for the Adjournment of the House.
In the afternoon, a debate on the European Union on a motion for the Adjournment of the House, which will be brought to a conclusion on Thursday 12 December. Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
FRIDAY 13 DECEMBER—Private Members' Bills.
For the following week, I am at present in a position to give information only for the first day.
MONDAY 16 DECEMBER—Progress on the Protection from Harassment Bill.
The House will also wish to know that on Wednesday 11 December there will be a debate on Community railway policy in European Standing Committee A, and a debate on development of the social dialogue in European Standing Committee B.
The House will also wish to know that it will be proposed that on Tuesday 17 December there will a debate on the information society in European Standing Committee B.
Details of the relevant documents will be given in the Official Report.
[Wednesday 11 and Thursday 12 December:
Debate on the European Union—Relevant European Community Documents:

(1)The White Paper on Developments in the European Union, January to June 1996 (Cm 3469).

(2)Presidency General Outline for draft revision of Treaties.

(3)The Commission's Work Programme for 1997: New Legislative Proposals (SEC(96)1819).

(4)The Commission's Work Programme for 1997: Political Priorities (COM(96)507).

1204

(5)European Community Document No. 10867/96 on the introduction of the euro.

(6)European Community Document No. 10893/96 on reinforced convergence procedures and a new exchange rate mechanism.

(7)European Community Document No. 10892/96 on a stability pact for ensuring budgetary discipline in stage 3 of EMU.

(8)Second and Third Reports from the Select Committee on European Legislation, HC 36-ii and 36-iii (1996–97).

(9)Sixth Report from the Select Committee on European Legislation, European Documents on Economic and Monetary Union: The Scrutiny Process, HC 36-vi (1996–97).

(10)Eighth Report from the Treasury Committee, The Prognosis for Stage 3 of Economic and Monetary Union, HC 283, Volumes I and II (1995–96).

(11)Minutes of Evidence taken by the Select Committee on European Legislation on 3 December (HC 136-i).

(12) Minutes of Evidence taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 5 December.

The Minutes of Evidence to be taken by the Foreign Affairs Committee on 9 December may also be relevant.
Tuesday 10 December:
Estimates Day [1st Allotted Day—1st Part]. Vote on Account, Class XVIII, Vote 1 Cabinet Office: Office of Public Service in so far as it relates to Access to Government Information. Relevant Reports: The Second Report from the Select Committee on the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, Session 1995–96, (HC 84), Open Government, and the Government's Reply published in the Committee's First Special Report, Session 1996–97, (HC 75).
Wednesday 11 December:
European Standing Committee A—Relevant European Community Documents: (a) 10003/95, Community Railway Policy; (b) 9654/96, The Community's Railways. Relevant European Legislation Committee Reports: (a) HC 51-i (1995–96); (b) HC 51-xxix (1995–96).
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 10305/96, Development of the Social Dialogue. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-ii (1996–97).
Tuesday 17 December:
European Standing Committee B—Relevant European Community Document: 9795/96, The Information Society: Priorities and Implications. Relevant European Legislation Committee Report: HC 36-i (1996–97).]
Mrs. Taylor: I thank the Leader of the House. The whole House will welcome the fact that the Government have responded to its demands for a full-day debate on economic and monetary union, which is to take place on Wednesday, in addition to the more general Euro-debate on Thursday. We have no objection to that debate being on the Adjournment. However, will the Leader of the House tell us what is to happen to the documents relevant to that debate which have still not been voted on? Surely it would be appropriate to vote on them at the conclusion of the debate on Wednesday evening.

1205
We welcome progress on the Protection from Harassment Bill, which is to have all its stages as quickly as possible on the Floor of the House starting on Monday 16 December, and the fact that the Government have taken up our offer of co-operation. As the Bill goes further than the original proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Rossendale and Darwen (Ms Anderson), which the Government blocked earlier this year, will the right hon. Gentleman ensure that the additional provisions in the Bill are the subject of proper consultation so that the legislation will be workable? To that end, will the Leader of the House reflect that we might need more than one day to consider the Bill properly? That should not materially affect its progress.
Can the Leader of the House say whether, as has become usual practice, we will have the annual fisheries debate in the next few sitting weeks because that involves many important issues that concern both Government and Opposition Members?
Finally, there is today's appalling news about aspects of the Budget statement that were not made clear to the House during the Chancellor's Budget speech or when the Secretary of State for Social Security opened his debate last Thursday: the changes to the benefits of disabled ex-service men and war widows. The Prime Minister made the situation worse a few moments ago by not being able to answer some very basic questions, and today the hon. Member for Davyhulme (Mr. Churchill) has said of one Minister:
"Someone who has so little regard for our war heroes should not be in the Government".
Surely shabby and misleading ministerial actions that provoke such comments warrant a debate in the House.
Mr. Newton: On the debate before the Dublin European Council, I am grateful to the hon. Lady for acquiescing in the idea of a debate on the Adjournment. She asked about the completion of scrutiny. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor still has detailed issues to raise with other Finance Ministers, including points made by hon. Members in the House, we do not intend to seek to complete scrutiny at present. Legislation is not likely to be finally adopted until after the Amsterdam summit next June. Detailed negotiations on the legal text of the stability pact have not even started. Our intention is to return to the House with the revised text next year once it is clearer how the eventual proposals will look. If the proposals are acceptable to the United Kingdom—which, in due course, we believe that they should be—we will then seek scrutiny clearance. In the meantime, at Dublin and on other appropriate occasions, where necessary, we will table a parliamentary reserve. I repeat the assurances that have been given that the Government will not participate in political agreements until scrutiny is cleared.
I note what the hon. Lady said on the Protection from Harassment Bill. One of the reasons why I have not been able to give details for the days following Monday is that discussions are going on through the usual channels. I certainly acknowledge that the point she has raised deserves consideration, and I hope that we will be able to reach an agreement on it.
I can confirm that we intend to have the fisheries debate before the recess.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made the position on war pensions perfectly clear. The changes that were the principal focus of The Guardian story today rest
1206
on medical advice, precisely in the same way as the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's proposals, which we have been repeatedly pressed to accept for many months, rest on medical advice. I do not think that it can be reasonable for the Opposition to argue that medical advice should be ignored in some cases and accepted in others.
Mr. Bob Dunn: May we have an urgent debate soon in Government time on constitutional developments, given that many of us on the Conservative Benches wish to demonstrate our opposition to proportional representation, the abolition of the House of Lords, the break-up of the United Kingdom and the imposition of regional government on England? Those policies, if enacted, would be a constitutional nightmare for the people of this country.
Mr. Newton: I can readily agree with my hon. Friend that such a debate certainly has much merit, but I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for it before Christmas, unless my hon. Friend wishes to be here at Christmas.
Mr. Simon Hughes: Will the Leader of the House give an assurance that he has not confused the widespread support in the House for the passage into law of the Protection from Harassment Bill with the idea that all stages should be taken without any proper opportunity being provided between those stages for people to consider what has been agreed at each stage? There is a danger that, as has happened with previous legislation, that Bill will appear speedily on the statute book and will be a muddle.
Given the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time, may we have a debate before Thursday next week, either during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill or the debate on the estimates, on a wide range of pensioner issues, although they should specifically include war pensioners, who are the subject of the concern expressed in today's press reports? That debate could also refer to the fact that many councils, such as Barnsley, do not disregard war pensions from council tax and housing benefit. The Government and the Opposition are making sure that war pensioners are treated differently up and down the country.
Mr. Newton: I am afraid that I cannot undertake to provide time for a debate of the kind that the hon. Gentleman has sought. There is provision for a debate on one aspect of pensions—unfunded pension liabilities—although I accept that that is a fairly narrow issue. I should remind the hon. Gentleman that we recently had a full day allocated to social security during the debate on the Budget.
As for Barnsley, a degree of local discretion in such matters has been exercised for a long time, and no doubt the hon. Gentleman's remarks will have been noted in Barnsley.
Mr. William Cash: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge that the announcement he has just made about the debate that we were expecting and hoping for on the regulations, the stability pact and so forth shows that the Government have now accepted that the opinions of the House as a whole, which come from all parts of

1207
the political spectrum, have prevailed? The Government have now accepted the fact that they must always take note of what the Select Committee says with regard to debates being taken on the Floor of the House. Will he absolutely guarantee that what happened two weeks ago will never happen again?
Mr. Newton: My hon. Friend, for reasons that I understand, rather stretches his interpretation of what I have said. I have not changed the proposals for the debate. We made it clear long ago that we would provide time for a debate before the Dublin Council. We have now extended that debate to two days, particularly to allow greater time for discussion of EMU. On the other points, my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor made it clear in two sets of exchanges that we have had during the past fortnight that he understood some of the points and concerns that were raised with him. Those are the ones that he has been pressing and is continuing to discuss with our European partners.
Mr. Alfred Morris: I intervene as honorary parliamentary adviser to the Royal British Legion. Is it not totally unpardonable for the Secretary of State for Social Security to have written to the Chief Secretary about how to divide the ex-service community? When shall we have a statement from him? Will the ministerial correspondence be published in full? And why make a plea to Japanese business men to help the former prisoners of war of their country, when the Secretary of State's letter so blatantly dishonours our war-disabled people?
Mr. Newton: I do not for one moment accept the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. I shall bring his point to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security, but he will know that, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in another place has this morning met and discussed those matters with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions, in the proper and understood way.
Mr. Harry Greenway: May we have a debate next week on animal welfare, so that the view held by many hon. Members on both sides of the House that animals should be recognised as sentient beings in European legislation may be put across the Floor of the House; and so that we can investigate the possibility of lottery money being used to assist animal welfare organisations in the valuable work that so many of them do?
Mr. Newton: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend's persistent and proper interest in animal welfare matters. Even so, I cannot promise time for a debate. The best opportunity in the next couple of weeks that I can think of would be the morning of Wednesday 18 December, when I will be here for three hours, during which time hon. Members can talk about any subject.
Mr. Peter Shore: The Leader of the House has conceded a debate on European monetary union and the stability pact next week, but he
1208
has denied us a vote. Whatever consideration the Government have given to that—I note with regret that Opposition Front Benchers have not pressed for a vote—surely the Leader of the House realises that he has obligations to Back Benchers and that there are Back Benchers on both sides of the House who feel that sufficient progress has been made on the stability pact and on European monetary union for the House now to make clear how far we are prepared to go. We can indicate those limits to the Government only if there is an amendable motion.
Mr. Newton: I cannot add to what I said, which—perhaps understandably—I thought was extremely reasonable. The possibilities in that field are still under discussion and are not likely to be finally adopted for many months and detailed negotiation on the legal texts in respect of the stability pact has not even started.
Sir Jim Spicer: May I ask for my right hon. Friend's help? The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris) and I are both advisers to the Royal British Legion. I understood that the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions had approved of the changes, either yesterday afternoon or today. In view of what has been said today, it is now my intention to go—with, I hope, the right hon. Member for Wythenshawe—to meet the committee. Will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House ensure that, together with the chairman of the committee and a representative of the Royal British Legion, we can then meet the appropriate Social Security Minister?
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Security will look carefully at my hon. Friend's point. I can only confirm that those changes have been discussed this morning, in the usual and proper way, with the Central Advisory Committee on War Pensions.
Mr. Don Dixon: May I draw the Leader of the House's attention to early-day motion 302, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)?
[That this House is seriously concerned by the continuing decline of the Merchant Navy; recalls the important role played by the merchant fleet for over a century including two world wars; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to address as a matter of urgency the effects the decline of the Merchant Navy has on the ship building industry, the port transport industry, the British seafarers and the economy as a whole.]
Bearing in mind the fact that we might be one of the only maritime nations in the world that does not have a maritime policy, will the right hon. Gentleman give us a debate on that subject in Government time on the Floor of the House?
Mr. Newton: I acknowledge the importance of the subject, but I cannot make an immediate promise along the lines that the right hon. Gentleman seeks. We have put in place a range of measures, including simplified procedures, liberalised officers' nationality requirements and many others, including tax incentives to replace aging tonnage. We believe that those measures are making a positive contribution to the industry's position.
Lady Olga Maitland: Will my right hon. Friend give urgent consideration to a debate on

1209
the reform of the House of Lords proposed by the Labour party? Is he aware of the very deep concern felt by my constituents and further afield that there is an arrogant disregard for the constitution of our country, especially when the Labour party plans to flood the House of Lords with 700 life peers? Those important constitutional matters should be debated by all, and rejected.
Mr. Newton: I have already told my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Mr. Dunn) that I regard a debate to examine those aspects of the Opposition's policies as an attractive proposition, and I will bear my hon. Friend's further representations in mind.
Mr. Eddie Loyden: The Leader of the House may be aware that I was at Hillsborough on the fateful day of the tragedy. Will he arrange to hold a debate in the House as soon as possible? Many people, including the families of the Hillsborough victims, have not had a fair deal in the courts. I invite the Leader of the House to view tonight the film on that subject, or ask the Attorney-General to do so, so that they may better understand what happened that day.
Mr. Newton: I cannot make an immediate promise to watch the programme tonight, but I shall try to ensure that I view it subsequently, or at least gain a clear idea of what it says. I am sure that that will be true also of my right hon. and learned Friends the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General.
Mr. John Marshall: May we have an early debate on the situation in Cyprus, so that we can emphasise the need for Cyprus's application to join the European Union to be determined as a matter of urgency, regardless of whether there has been a political solution—welcome and necessary as that political solution would be?
Mr. Newton: I take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion and will bring it to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary.
Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: Does the Leader of the House consider that the debate on the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill next week would be an ideal opportunity for the Secretary of State for Transport to make a statement about the safety case for reopening the channel tunnel? The right hon. Gentleman could come to the House and publish all the evidence on which the opening has been based, to reassure the general public that the service is now safe, and that the reopening is a responsible act which people will welcome.
Mr. Newton: My right hon. Friend said that he would respond appropriately when the reports of the various inquiries that have been set up are available to him. Meanwhile, I understand that the intergovernmental commission, taking into account the advice of the independent Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, has raised no objection to the resumption of commercial passenger services through the tunnel, and undertook last Sunday an exercise that was one of several conditions that had to be
1210
fulfilled to the safety authority's satisfaction before the authority was prepared to make a favourable recommendation.
Mr. Ian Bruce: May we have an early debate on the Commission for Racial Equality? Hon. Members know that many millions of pounds are voted for that organisation. It appears to be a fairly large waste of money, not least because, in recent days, an hon. Member made a racial attack on Finnish people because they were white and had blue eyes, and no action has vet been taken against that person, who, obviously, was trying to incite Afro-Caribbean people to hatred of those people.
Mr. Newton: I am sure that my hon. Friend's remarks, like those to which he refers, will be studied with great care by that organisation.
Mr. Alex Salmond: Speaking in my role as the only political leader who understands Scotland—[Laughter].—according to Labour party research—may I ask the Leader of the House for an immediate debate into some vital research documents that have been made public? Is the Leader of the House aware that people in Scotland seem to believe that the Leader of the Opposition is smarmy, untrustworthy and a Tory, but believe that the Prime Minister is ineffective, wimpish and a Tory? Does not that represent a crisis of Unionist leadership, which the House must address before Christmas?
Mr. Newton: The perceptions reported in the research seem somewhat mixed. One is bound to question them in view of the hon. Gentleman's initial point about attitudes to him.
Mr. Jacques Arnold: May I support the calls for a debate on the reform of the House of Lords? We have heard how the Opposition would destroy the second House of the United Kingdom Parliament, but they have not been clear about a replacement. On the one hand, they propose to promote 700 of Blair's boys and girls to the other House—which strikes me as sleaze on a grand scale—and, on the other hand, they propose elections to a second House which would compete with the democratic authority of this place.
Mr. Newton: Clearly demand for such a debate is growing by the minute, and I take careful note of it.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Is the Leader of the House aware that a recent answer to a parliamentary question revealed that the Government have decided riot to proceed with the sale of the Royal Greenwich observatories in my constituency? With the fate of so many other public sector research establishments hanging in the balance, will the Leader of the House call upon the President of the Board of Trade to make an early decision about those sales and make a statement to the House so that he may be questioned about the chaos that has resulted from the prior options review?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Lady to learn that I do not accept her terminology. The Government's purpose is to find the best way forward for those

1211
organisations and to secure the best possible futures for them. I am sure that my right hon. Friend will examine her remarks with interest.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: Did the Leader of the House hear the earlier question from the hon. and learned Member for Burton (Sir. I. Lawrence) and the ensuing rather shameful exchange when the Home Secretary endorsed the intemperate language of the hon. and learned Gentleman, who referred to the European Court of Human Rights as interfering, meddling foreigners? It is one thing for a Government Back Bencher to say that, but quite another for the Home Secretary to endorse his comments. I think that we should be very clear about the Government's attitude. Could there be some form of statement or explanation of the Government's real attitude towards the European Court of Human Rights?
Mr. Newton: The straightforward answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is that I was present for only the last two or three minutes of Home Office questions, so I am not in a position to comment directly. I am surprised at the hon. Gentleman's interpretation of the exchange, but, as I am not in a position to comment, I shall draw his remarks to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend.
Mr. William O'Brien: In view of the widespread outbreaks of different strains of meningitis around the country, and the fact that some medical health officers are warning people of more possible outbreaks and some hospitals are opening closed wards to prepare for any such developments this winter, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on that subject next week? It is an urgent matter about which many people have expressed anxiety. Will the Secretary of State for Health make a statement to the House allowing hon. Members to express their concerns? We need some policy guidance on how the Government plan to combat any further outbreaks of meningitis.
Mr. Newton: When outbreaks occur, guidelines are published and the outbreak teams follow them. I am quite sure that, if anything fresh emerges following the statement earlier this week by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales about the outbreak in Cardiff, appropriate guidance will be considered. I shall bring the hon. Gentleman's concerns to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health.
Rev. Martin Smyth: I welcome the fact that next Monday we are to debate the Northern Ireland Arms Decommissioning Bill, but the Leader of the House and right hon. and hon. Members will be aware that, throughout the past 28 years, service men and others have been severely injured and women have been widowed. Therefore, I press the Leader of the House for a statement so that we can examine what has been reported in the press, for many of us missed the earlier exchanges. My attention was drawn to the problems as a result of the case of Charles McConaghy, a former constituent, who was blinded and deafened, as well as receiving other injuries, in an IRA explosion. Under the new terms, he is losing about £50 a week in
1212
compensation. Can we have a debate on that, because what have been called sweeteners seem to be saccharin—a substitute for the real thing?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman fairly acknowledged that he had not heard the earlier exchanges. I am not in a position to comment on a particular case, but as we are talking about medical advice that would affect future decisions, the hon. Gentleman might do well to examine with care what has already been said.
Mr. Robert Maclennan: May I lend the support of my right hon. and hon. Friends to the call that has been made three times in these exchanges from the right hon. Gentlemen's own Benches for a debate on the future of the House of Lords? That would enable us to consider in particular the view expressed yesterday by the Leader of the House of Lords that hereditary peers are more representative of the common man than are hon. Members elected to this House.
Mr. Newton: I note that support for such a debate has now spread from one side of the House to the other, which means that I must take even more notice.
Mr. Paul Flynn: When may we debate the question that the whole country is asking today: have the Government gone mad? All of us receive letters weekly from embittered ex-service men and women who feel that they have been cheated by the Government. They believe that they have sacrificed their health for their country, yet they are to be cheated again of £50 million. When will we debate that?
Mr. Newton: I have now commented, as has my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, several times on this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect on whether he would find it acceptable, if medical advice produced an extended entitlement to benefits, for the Government to reject that medical advice. We really must consider whether we are going to rest on medical advice or not.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: Since the Leader of the House has declined the suggestion of a debate and vote forthwith next Wednesday on the important stability pact regulations, will he consider, when further documents have been laid and further discussions have taken place, tabling the motion after such a debate?
As full official texts of the treaty that will be discussed in Dublin next weekend will not be available, will the Leader of the House ensure that at least a summary of what is proposed is before the House next Thursday?
Mr. Newton: On the hon. Gentleman's first point, I have made the position clear in what I said at the outset. We will return to the House with a revised text next year once it is clearer how the eventual proposals will look. If the proposals are acceptable to the United Kingdom—we think that they should be in due course—we will seek scrutiny clearance. That is the answer to the hon. Gentleman's question.
On the second point, as my hon. Friend the Minister of State told the Scrutiny Committee earlier this year, we shall make the draft treaty document available to the

1213
House as soon as is practicable, that is, within 24 hours of our having it. The House will have the opportunity to debate that fully as part of the two-day debate next week.
Mr. David Clelland: Will the Leader of the House arrange for a debate on today's statement by a senior health service manager from Newcastle, who said that national health service competition is not working and that it is being
"pushed to deal in commodities and not patient care"?
Mr. Newton: The hon. Gentleman might acknowledge the support that there is around the country, for example for GP fundholding. He might choose to describe it in that way, but the fact is that most people are finding that it is producing a better service.
Mr. Barry Jones: Is not the Government's position on the working hours directive disgraceful? When will the Leader of the House organise a debate in Government time on the Floor of the House? The directive is appropriate to industrial society at the end of this century.
Mr. Newton: I often agree with the hon. Gentleman, but not on this occasion. His description of the Government's attitude to the directive is unreasonable. The Government are seeking to ensure that as many of his constituents as possible are employed, not unemployed.
Mr. Harry Barnes: Why must we wait until June next year, after the general election, before we can seek scrutiny clearance on the three important European Union documents? They were considered to be so important that they were pushed into European Standing Committee B, and if they had been carried there, they would have been taken forthwith on the Floor of the House. Why have the Government changed their position so dramatically?
Mr. Newton: I can make an additional point. At the time when the documents were sent for scrutiny in Committee, we expected interim political agreements at ECOFIN on 2 December, with subsequent endorsement from the Council in Dublin. In the event, negotiations proceeded more slowly, and agreement was not reached at ECOFIN on 2 December. The position with which we were dealing has now changed.
Mr. Tony Banks: Has the Leader of the House studied the report of the Office of the National Lottery on the sale of scratch cards to under-age persons? I have come to the conclusion that scratch cards are a curse. They were not properly discussed when the legislation to set up the lottery went through the House. The second weekly draw is coming along. We were promised that the lottery would be monitored, and that we
1214
would have a chance to debate the issue. Many matters need to be discussed. May we have a debate on the workings of the national lottery, and particularly on its impact on charities?
Mr. Newton: It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman to know that I cannot promise a debate. I draw his attention to the fact that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for National Heritage is due to answer questions before Christmas—on Monday 16 December.
Mr. Mike Hall: I refer the Leader of the House to the earlier questions about war pensions. My father, Thomas Hall, served in the Fleet Air Arm from 1942 to 1945, and suffered perforated eardrums when his ship was bombed. In later life, he had a hearing loss of between 10 per cent. and 20 per cent., but because of the Government's changes to the regulations he was not entitled to a weekly war pension. His hearing deteriorated, and he was later assessed as having a hearing loss of more than 20 per cent. He could not claim his war pension until October 1997. Sadly, my father died a week last Saturday, so he will not be able to claim that pension.
The Government are now changing the threshold from 20 per cent. to 40 per cent. That has nothing to do with doctors' advice: they are cheating pensioners of their entitlement. We deserve a debate on this issue soon.
Mr. Newton: As I cannot add to what I have said, I shall confine my response to expressing my sympathy to the hon. Gentleman for the family circumstances to which he referred.
Mr. Cynog Dafis: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker, for more reasons than one!
I remind the Leader of the House that 1997 is an important year for global environmental policy and sustainable development. The Commission for Sustainable Development will meet in New York in April, and Earth summit II will be held at the General Assembly of the United Nations in June. Would it be appropriate for us to have a full debate in Government time on the Government's position on the important issues that will be discussed next year? We should have a statement from the Prime Minister on the Government's approach to the key themes, including an undertaking that he or his successor will attend the session at the United Nations in June.
Mr. Newton: It might be appropriate to have such a debate. That is an important subject. No one is in serious doubt that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, with the full backing of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, has played an important and leading role in such matters throughout the international negotiations.

BILL PRESENTED
  PROTECTION FROM HARASSMENT
  Mr. Howard, supported by the Prime Minister, Secretary Sir Patrick Mayhew, Mr. Secretary Portillo, Mr. Secretary Forsyth, Mr. Secretary Hague and Mr. David Maclean, presented a Bill to make provision for protecting persons from harassment and similar conduct: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 49].

  DELEGATED LEGISLATION
  Madam Speaker: With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation,
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

  AGRICULTURE
  That the Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1996 (S.I., 1996, No. 2843), dated 12th November 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.
  INTERNATIONAL IMMUNITIES AND PRIVILEGES
  That the draft European Police Office (Legal Capacities) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 13th November, be approved.

  INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT
  That the draft Scottish Enterprise (Aggregate Amount Outstanding) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 11th November, he approved. —[Mr. Knapman.]
  Question agreed to.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITY DOCUMENTS
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 102(9) (European Standing Committees),

  WASTE MANAGEMENT
  That this House takes note of European Community Document No. 9651/96 relating to waste management strategy: and endorses the Government's objective of broadly supporting the review so that future waste management strategy balances the need for a high level of environmental protection with the need for an appropriate level of regulation to ensure the functioning of the internal market.—[Mr. Knapntan.]
  Question agreed to.

Harbours, Docks, Piers and Ferries
[Relevant documents: Memoranda relating to this Order contained in the Fifth Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments of Session 1996–97, HC 29-v.]
4.9 pm
The Secretary of State for Transport (Sir George Young): I beg to move,
That the draft Port of Tyne Authority (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.
The order will enable me to effect the transfer of the assets, rights, liabilities and duties of the Port of Tyne Authority to a company, which will be offered for sale. All property, rights and liabilities of the authority and all functions conferred or imposed on the authority by any local statutory provision will be transferred to the successor company already set up by the authority when the order comes into force. The most important such obligation is that of continuing to run a port on the Tyne.
I shall start by briefly setting the order in the context of the Government's policy on ports. Our objective for the ports industry has been that it should be capable, innovative and self-sufficient. The Government have done that by removing subsidies, by deregulation—abolishing the dock labour scheme—and by privatisation. They have sought to improve performance by promoting competition.
As a result, the efficiency of operations has been improved, efficiency gains have been made in the use of manpower, labour relations have improved, and substantial investments have been made. Our policies have succeeded and the benefits have not stopped at the ports. They have been to the advantage of all who depend on them and, to some extent, that means everyone in the country and many abroad.
The Ports Act 1991 is part of that story. It was introduced as an enabling measure, to provide a simpler and quicker mechanism than the private Bill procedure for trust ports to privatise themselves and take advantage of private sector input and practice, such as the investment of private capital. We introduced the measure because that is what a number of ports wanted to do. They were right to do so.
Six ports have used the voluntary privatisation procedure in the Ports Act—Tees and Hartlepool, Forth, Clyde, Medway and Tilbury in 1992 and, following their success, Dundee in 1995. New sources of finance have been tapped to provide new and improved facilities. Other advantages have followed and those ports have all prospered as a result.
Let us consider briefly the progress that has been made. Between 1992 and 1995, Tees and Hartlepool achieved an increase in turnover of more than 20 per cent., and an increase in pre-tax surplus over the same period approaching 100 per cent. The chief executive says:
"I think since privatisation there has been a fairly significant change in the culture of the port. I think there is an awareness that we are providing a privatised business that has to succeed. About 40 per cent. of employees have shares—we were greatly surprised by the number of people who wanted to take shares in the business".
Mr. Andrew Smith: On the Secretary of State's claims for the privatised ports, is it not the case that the port of Tyne's pre-tax surplus increased by 172 per cent. between 1992 and 1994, which is better than that of three of the privatised ports to which he referred?
Sir George Young: The tonnage carried in that period decreased, however. That was not an expansion period for that port. Clyde's turnover and tonnage—it is not just the turnover—increased by 33 per cent. and its pre-tax profits by 58 per cent. between 1992 and 1995. In their 1995 annual report, the directors reported:
"Another satisfactory year … acquisition of new waterfront facility will provide increased opportunities for expansion and diversification".
Lloyd's List in May this year said:
"In 1992 Clydeport considered closing its Greenock operation due to lack of business … now the group is more concerned it will run out of capacity at Greenock and has therefore bought a neighbouring site".
If we look at Forth, we find the same impressive story. In the 1995 annual report and accounts, the chairman notes:
"Turnover has increased by 32 per cent. to reach £47.3m … Profit before tax was up £15.3m (up from £13.9m in 1994)".
The position of Forth has been helped by the acquisition of Tilbury and Dundee. Lloyd's List recently noted:
"At one time damned by an image of crumbling infrastructure and fractious labour relations, Tilbury has re-emerged over the past few years to mount an increasing challenge to its more recently developed competitors at Felixstowe and the Isle of Grain. Tilbury's recent history has been recounted a thousand times—abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme, followed by a management-led privatisation and ultimately the sale to Forth Ports Group. Those dramatic changes have served to revolutionise the culture and business attitudes at the port, now being driven by Forth Ports' desire to generate realistic returns on investment".
That has, of course, been the general experience of privatisation, and it is what we should expect for the privatisation of Tyne. The evidence all points in one direction: port privatisation substantially improves port performance.
Privatisation does not reduce the responsibilities of port authorities. All their obligations under general law continue, and the Ports Act provides that all functions conferred or imposed on an authority by any statutory provision are transferred to any successor company. The Act also specifically applies the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981, which provide statutory protection for employees from takeovers to transfers under the Ports Act. Additionally, there is provision for a clawback levy to be applied on a sliding scale to all land disposals during the first 10 years following privatisation. So the taxpayer would benefit from sale of surplus land.
The users of the port will continue to benefit—as do all users of UK ports—from the Harbours Act 1964, which gives me a statutory right of appeal against unreasonable port dues. The right is important, because the public right of access to ports depends upon the payment of those dues. The right is in reserve, but it is rarely used. There is no doubt—because of commercial pressures generated by the promotion of competition in the ports industry, as I have already mentioned—that commercial
1218
pressure keeps down fees. The right has never been exercised for any of the privatised trust ports since they were privatised.
Mr. Don Dixon: If privatisation is so good, why are the Government not privatising the port of Dover?
Sir George Young: The port of Dover has given an undertaking voluntarily to privatise itself in 1997.
With that background on the Government's ports policy and the Ports Act, I come to the privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority. Our intention in seeking the compulsory privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority is to create an opportunity for the port to share the benefits gained by the entrepreneurial and innovative approach more generally found in the private sector.
The Port of Tyne Authority has not ruled out privatisation. Indeed, in the authority's response of September 1995 to the consultation on compulsory privatisation, it states that it welcomes the provisions of the Ports Act that enable voluntary privatisation, and even accepts that compulsory privatisation may be needed in certain circumstances. However, it does not consider that its port would benefit. With all respect, however, and in no spirit of criticism, I have to say that it cannot be disinterested, and that it is only natural for the authority, and indeed for others connected with the port, to perceive proposed privatisation as a threat or criticism. It is not.
Privatisation is based on the general experience, in this country and others, that it brings a change of culture that benefits and improves overall performance. Taking the port fully into the private sector will not undermine what has already been achieved. Rather, it will open up more opportunities for innovation and entrepreneurial development, to the benefit of port users and the wider Tyneside community. Privatisation can be expected to lead to a more dynamic approach to investment, exploiting more fully the authority's financial capacity, to the benefit of the region. So we believe that the port's future development will be best handled in the private sector.
I should like to deal with some of the concerns that have been expressed in the consultation exercise. Some concern has been expressed about timing, arising mainly from uncertainties because of decline in the coal trade. It is not surprising that there have been both positive and negative developments in the port's business in recent years—that is the nature of the ports business. Waiting for a steady state would mean that no port could ever be privatised. Potential purchasers and their advisers should have no substantial difficulty in assessing and allowing for any uncertainties in the future business of Tyne. The port has indeed shown that it can adapt to changing trade patterns.
The powers of compulsion in section 10 of the Ports Act enable me compulsorily to privatise any trust port with a turnover exceeding £5 million, at 1991 prices, following consideration of responses to a succession of consultation exercises, and with the consent of Parliament.
My right hon. Friend the previous Secretary of State consulted the Port of Tyne Authority, in June 1995, to ascertain its views on privatisation, and it was asked to respond within three months. As I explained, we were not convinced by the authority's arguments against

1219
privatisation, and I wrote to the chairman on 15 November last year to direct the authority to form a company and prepare a transfer scheme, to enable the authority to transfer all its property, rights, liabilities and functions to that company. A model transfer scheme was provided to the port authority for consideration, and the actions were to be completed by the end of February this year. The Port of Tyne Authority complied with that timetable and advertised its scheme in March, inviting anyone who wished to do so to send representations to me.
The scheme submitted by the Port of Tyne Authority, although based on a model provided by my Department, included a number of additional provisions that would have been likely to constrain the operation and development of the port, which I shall come to in a moment. In my view, it would not have been possible to make the scheme accord with advice previously given. I therefore considered making my own scheme, as provided for in section 12 of the Act, and consulted the Port of Tyne Authority and considered its views before advertising the proposed scheme and inviting representations.
Following consideration of the representations, I was and am still minded to proceed. My proposed scheme forms the schedule to the order before the House. It follows closely the transfer schemes used in previous privatisations, including that in Ipswich, which was approved by Parliament earlier this year. I considered the additional provisions proposed in the Port of Tyne Authority's scheme to be unacceptable and unnecessary. Their removal was the main focus of representations made to me on my proposed scheme.
The provisions raised an important and difficult issue. A transfer scheme concerns the transfer of property, rights, liabilities and statutory functions of the port authority to a successor company. It is not appropriate for such a scheme to contain provisions that are not directly connected with the transfer but intended to impose new, on-going commitments on the successor company. There is even a question whether such on-going provisions would be intra vires.
Such doubts and the difficulty and inappropriateness of each of the proposals led me to propose my scheme. As I said, it follows very closely the schemes used for all the voluntary privatisations and the scheme being followed for Ipswich, which was discussed in Committee earlier this year.
The authority's proposals covered aspects of pension and employee rights. There is, of course, general protective legislation in those matters, which will apply to the successor company, and there is no case for or way of imposing further legal obligations on that company. I of course understand that such matters are of concern and I shall be prepared to consider with the authority what might be included in the sale objectives, to allow prospective purchasers' intentions to be considered in the evaluation of bids.
There was no justification for the authority's proposed consultative committee, with its extraordinary range of powers, which would have shackled any new management in a totally unacceptable way. The successor company will be just as capable as the port authority of continuing
1220
good relations with local interests. Indeed, it will be in its commercial interest so to do, as evidenced by the conduct of port businesses already in the private sector.
The proposed consultative committee was to have held a special share, provided for in the company documents for Port of Tyne plc—the company set up by the port authority in accordance with directions earlier this year. Subject to parliamentary approval of the order, we shall direct that the relevant article—article 30—be deleted from the company's articles of association, that other consequential amendments be made, and that a few minor amendments to bring the company documents into line with Companies Acts regulations also be made.
The authority also questioned whether a new owner would have sufficient funds to invest. The Government's position is that anyone making a bid will do so on the basis that they will be able to operate the port profitably thereafter. No one would make a bid that put them in a position where they were not then able to operate the port profitably.
The authority also maintained that the port's wide legal powers meant that the benefits of privatisation would not be significant. Although in some privatisations, the wider powers available to a company have certainly improved the ability of ports to operate, the benefits of privatisation are not confined to that one factor. Privatisation in the ports and other industries has shown that benefits flow from the conversion to a full commercial operation based on shareholder equity and interest. The authority's scheme also included a general provision relating to on-going maintenance of the port, how profits should be used and local management of the port, but there is no case for such a provision.
Subject to parliamentary approval of the draft order, the sale of the port will be undertaken by the Port of Tyne Authority and its advisers. Ministers intend to discuss the process and the timetable with the chairman immediately. I want to discuss the desirability of encouraging a management-employee buy-out offer—a MEBO—with substantial employee share ownership.
We believe that it is appropriate to proceed with the privatisation. I therefore commend the order to the House.
4.24 pm
Mr. Andrew Smith: The Secretary of State's speech and the imposition of the order mark a sad day in the history of British ports. For the first time, the Government are forcing through the privatisation—indeed, the expropriation—of a trust port against the will of the port and in the face of the views of 98 per cent. of those who commented in the consultation process, including many businesses.
We are witnessing Tory privatisation for the sake of it. That was clear from the fact that the Secretary of State spent half his speech talking about privatisation before he got round to mentioning the port of Tyne.
Unlike the Conservatives, Labour is not obsessed with public or private ownership, but is concerned with what can work best for the users of the port, for those who work there and for those in the surrounding area who rely on the prosperity that the port creates. We believe that ports can flourish in the public or private sector.
It is abundantly obvious that the port of Tyne is succeeding in developing its business, in investing and in sustaining the confidence of its customers. It should not be forced to undergo the uncertainty and cost of privatisation simply to satisfy Conservative dogma.

1221
The Port of Tyne Authority is already meeting the objectives that the Government say that they want privatisation to achieve. The Secretary of State said that he wanted the port to be innovative and self-sufficient. It has been innovative and self-sufficient—it has the widest possible powers of any port to enter into joint ventures to develop its business; it has significantly increased its attractiveness to companies; and it has already successfully taken steps to secure the regeneration of virtually all its developable surplus land, as the Secretary of State has said. Its financial position is such that it has had no need to obtain share capital, nor has it had any difficulty in borrowing from the financial markets. Last year, the port paid off the last remaining part of its debt. This year, it announced an £8 million investment plan as part of its programme to tackle the decline in its traditional trade of coal. All that was managed without recourse to borrowing.
I can understand a Government who have doubled—no less—the national debt in the past six years being jealous of that achievement, but that gives no grounds for this vindictive and damaging order. The port's operating record also does not justify the privatisation: it operates to more overseas ports than any other in the United Kingdom; last year, it was used by more than 360,000 passengers and almost 60,000 cars; and the number of passengers is expected to increase by 50 per cent. next year. It has diversified its trade and won new business. It was chosen by Nissan as its car terminal despite competition from the privatised Tees and Hartlepool Authority. The port of Tyne won because of the competitive pricing structure made possible by its financial position and Nissan's confidence in the long-term stability of the authority's management.
New agreements have been concluded, including one with Warrant Distribution Ltd., involving the construction of a further 16,000 sq m of transit shed accommodation. Exploiting market opportunities in the container business, the authority developed a new berth and storage compound in 1991. Those facilities are now used by Mitsui OSK Lines to provide just-in-time services to Nissan and other key manufacturers in the region. The port now handles 22,000 containers a year—traffic that has been developed in just four years.
The port has developed diversification, made more investment, generated more business and made higher profits. That is a record that should be rewarded, not penalised. Yet the port is being penalised and has already been damaged by the threat of forced privatisation. The port believes that that uncertainty led to DFDS terminating its freight service from the Tyne. Hundreds of thousands of pounds have already been consumed on external consultants, accountants and lawyers in the privatisation process. The port fears that privatisation would be likely to see a rise in port charges, cuts in capital expenditure and uncertainty and upheaval that would prejudice the authority's efforts to find new trade to replace the declining coal traffic.
The authority takes the example of the privatised Tees and Hartlepool port, which has seen a post-privatisation cut in capital investment of almost 60 per cent. since 1992. No wonder that the authority board members—the majority of whom were appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport—recognise the
1222
dangers of forced privatisation and unanimously oppose it. Surely it is entirely reasonable, and in the public interest, for the port to resist the pressure that it fears to cut investment or to strip and sell off its assets. At present, all the profit from the port is available for reinvestment in infrastructure, port services arid local regeneration.
It cannot be wrong, given the port's record, for the authority to choose to continue to have the opportunity to build on its investment and not be driven instead by possibly short-term shareholder pressure, especially given the uncertainties that it faces in its traditional coal business. After all, the Government agreed with that view when they withdrew their plan to privatise the port of Dover after local and national representations. It seems as if the only crime that the users and employees of the port of Tyne have committed is not to be situated in a Conservative marginal seat such as Dover.
Of course, on that plan, the Secretary of State for Transport stated that uncertainties about the impact of the channel tunnel on that port's prospects meant that it would not be appropriate to privatise it until the position became clearer. If that was the Government's case on Dover, there is a comparable one on the Tyne. The decline in coal traffic has had a significant impact on the immediate financial prospects of the port and has created a volatility that will make it similarly difficult to value the undertaking for sale purposes. That is a sound argument and, as the port has pointed out, it is unreasonable for the Secretary of State to attempt to proceed at this stage with compulsory privatisation proposals.
It is particularly unreasonable for the Secretary of State to proceed without incorporating any of the provisions that the authority drew up in its scheme under the Ports Act 1991, to which the right hon. Gentleman referred. Those provisions would have protected port users from excessive increases in dues in the first five years of privatisation. They would have required any new owner to maintain the port to at least the same high standards as before privatisation and would have prevented port profits from being siphoned off for non-port purposes. They would have safeguarded terms and conditions for employees and protected pension rights. They would also have given port users, local authorities and other interested bodies a voice in the privatised port through the consultative committee, with a golden share to ensure that no action could be taken that was in any way detrimental to the port.
In rejecting, as the Secretary of State has, not just some but all of those protections for employees, users and the region, he is giving a signal that he would be happy to see increases in dues, falling standards, and terms and conditions, pensions and the interests of the region undermined. All those important factors are as nothing compared with his obdurate determination to impose privatisation on his dogmatic terms. Where is the freedom of choice that he and his party used to like to boast a belief in?
The proposed privatisation is the first time that any Secretary of State for Transport has imposed the transfer.
Sir George Young: That is the second time that the hon. Gentleman has called the order the first. It is not. Proposals for Ipswich were taken in Committee earlier this year, with much less objection from the Opposition. This is the second one.
Mr. Smith: The Government submitted a scheme—I see that the Secretary of State is nodding. It is a true sign
of a tired and incompetent Government that they are resorting to extreme measures and forcing through their dogma in that way. Indeed, so incompetent were they that they could not even get their own procedures right for advertising the scheme that they put forward, and they had to go round the course again.
If the Secretary of State and the Government will not accept the arguments that I have set out, or the views of the port and its employees, the local authorities or the people of the region, perhaps he will listen to what private business has said about the privatisation.
The chief executive of Mitsui OSK Lines said:
"My colleagues in Japan and Europe all feel strongly that the process and effect of Privatisation of the Port of Tyne will, at the very least"—
[Interruption.] The Secretary of State ought at least to listen to what the European chief executive of Mitsui has to say on behalf of his company. He says that privatisation will
"at the very least, result in instability and uncertainty, which will damage confidence in the region, to the detriment of present and future inward investment. We therefore request that you make every effort to retain the present status quo as a Trust Port."
That plea is directed at a Government who are always boasting of their concern for inward investment. Here is an important inward investor saying that privatisation will damage its business, yet the Government do not respond.
RJB Mining is the company that the Government entrusted with the running of the national coal industry, yet its representatives said:
"The implications and potential risks of privatisation are something of an unknown quantity, whereas I am confident that the maintenance of the status quo would enable us to build on our existing understanding to secure continued business through the port. Our preference, therefore, would be to see no change to the current arrangements".
I could list many more examples of representations made on the port, pleading for it to retain its current status. Opinion among port users, employees, local authorities and others in the region is overwhelmingly against compulsory privatisation of the port. Of 330 representations made to the Secretary of State about his scheme, only four were in favour. And who did those four come from? Prospective bidders—and three of those were so confident of the persuasive power of their views that they declined to have them published.
Instead of Tory privatisation dogma, let us listen to local people and to business, and recognise that forced privatisation would be bad for business, bad for shipping and bad for Newcastle, just like the Government who are driving it through. Let us vote for the freedom of choice for the port of Tyne to remain a trust port, and reject the order.
4.37 pm
Mr. Neville Trotter: Tyneside's strong maritime history goes back to the days of the Romans, although in practice its prosperity is based on the coal trade.
1224
One hundred years ago, more than 3 million tonnes of coal was exported from the Tyne. It was the foundation of the industrial prosperity of the whole river and Tyneside area. In 1923, 22 million tonnes of coal was shipped from the river, and we now have the most modern coal facility in the country, with a capacity of 5 million tonnes a year.
Unfortunately, the market for coal has disappeared. Last year, only 2 million tonnes was exported from the port, and the representatives of the port have admitted that it is prudent to assume that the trade will soon cease altogether. That is an important factor in considering the plans for the future of the port. It must be able to adapt further to changed circumstances. Although the port made a big profit last year, it cannot rely on that continuing if it simply remains as it is.
In 1970, 4 million tonnes of other traffic went through the port; now, it is down to half that figure. In the port's heyday, the number of ships entering the river was 40 a day, or 14,000 a year; by 1970, it was down to 12 ships a day; now, it is down to only four or five ships a day. The Tees has 10 times the amount of business that the Tyne has. When I looked at the official statistics for the port industry, I saw that the Tyne was not in the list of top ports. It is the only major river in the country not listed as a major port. We should bear in mind the realities of the situation.
There is a positive side. We have heard about Nissan coming to the Tyne. That was a big achievement for the port. Nissan exports 80 per cent. of its production to 36 countries, including Japan. It is the biggest car exporter in the country and exports 5,000 cars a week from the Tyne.
We have a booming ship repair industry, which is revitalised and highly competitive. We have a successful offshore industry, with Amec and Swan Hunter employing many people again, and other firms such as A and P Appledore, McNulty and Tyne Tees.
The river has been cleaned up. One of the most remarkable achievements in recent times has been the success of the Tyne and Wear development corporation, in particular, in redeveloping the river frontage. Some years ago, the Tyne had become miles of dereliction—an eyesore. Now, it is revitalised, modernised and attractive to new business.
Fears have been expressed about the sale of port land for development, but we have heard from both sides in the debate that that has already happened. Land has already been disposed of by the Tyne and Wear development corporation, which successfully carried out the redevelopment.
We have heard fears expressed on behalf of employees, but as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State pointed out, they will be protected by legislation. In his opening speech, my right hon. Friend also referred to the benefit of share ownership. That is important. Employees can participate through share ownership in the new company. That would be encouraged, as my right hon. Friend said in his presentation to the port. In many of the ports that have been privatised, more than half the shares ended up being owned by people who worked in the port. That is a positive development.
There are fears that the new company will have the wrong financial motivation. It must be in the interests of the owners that success should follow from the transfer of ownership. They want the port to succeed—that is why

1225
they are acquiring it. They will achieve that by satisfying their existing customers and attracting new ones. The new company will remain a statutory harbour authority. For reasons that I do not understand, it is feared that port facilities will be closed. The company will have the same duties and responsibilities under the Ports Act 1991 as the present port authority has. It will not be able to dispose of operational land without the approval of Parliament. There will have to be an opportunity for objections to be raised to such a proposal and, if there were objections, there would have to be a public inquiry.
There are fears that charges will be increased. If I read the figures correctly, on a turnover of £14 million, the port made a profit of £5 million. If I were one of the port users, I might already bear that fact in mind. The 1991 Act states that charges must be reasonable. If there were any misguided attempt to increase the charges—I do not see why there should be—there is a right of appeal to the Secretary of State. That right of appeal has never been used in any of the previous port privatisations.
Some ports seemed to be efficient before they were privatised, but they are more efficient now, after privatisation. Port privatisation has been an undoubted success and experience from one end of the country to the other does not bear out the fears that have been expressed. Privatisation has brought increased business, profit and capital investment.
I see no reason to doubt that the Tyne will be another success story. We have a long and proud history on the Tyne, and I look to a positive future. We have a well-situated port for traffic to north-east Europe and we have further opportunities through the offshore industries.
Mr. A.J. Beith: I declare an interest as an occasional user and licence payer on the river. Why is the hon. Gentleman so ready to ignore the views of all the established users, including Nissan and Color Line? The burden of representations was not just overwhelmingly, but totally, against the scheme proposed by the Secretary of State.
Mr. Trotter: I shall not detain the House by reading out the long letter from the chamber of commerce, which was a sensible summary of the views of 3,000 firms that trade in the north-east. It was a rational expression of the matters that must be addressed by the Secretary of State. I was about to deal with the matter in my concluding remarks.
When the Secretary of State judges the bids, he does not have to accept the highest offer. I remind the House that the bids will be assessed in the first instance by the port authority, which will make a recommendation to the Secretary of State. There have been examples where the highest offer has not been accepted for the reasons discussed in the debate. In the case of Tees and Hartlepool, if price had been the only criterion, the highest bid would have been accepted, but the board considered that the high price was not sufficient to overcome its preference. In the interests of the port's independence and long-term stability and the benefit of the community, another offer was accepted.
The Secretary of State hardly needs to be told that, when the time comes to consider the bids, we should not necessarily accept the highest offer.
Mr. Jim Cousins: Will the hon. Gentleman also invite the Secretary of State
1226
to guarantee that the cash reserves of the port, which are substantial, should be reserved for the development of the port and its uses?
Mr. Trotter: The future funding of the port must be one of the major factors affecting the consideration of the bids. I am sure that the Secretary of State will bear that factor in mind. Investment should be guaranteed. That should be one of the requirements on those who offer bids.
I want an active and vibrant river for the future. I hope that a successful bid will emerge, and I do not believe that the fears that have been expressed will materialise.
4.46 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith), who advanced a good case against the nonsensical scheme that has been proposed by the Secretary of State for Transport.
Having lived on the banks of the River Tyne for 67 years, and having worked all my working life in the shipyards on the River Tyne until I retired from gainful employment in 1979 and came to this place, I speak with a certain amount of knowledge about the area.
Needless to say, I oppose the privatisation scheme. I never thought when I entered the House in 1979 that I would rise to defend a quango, but that is what I am doing today. Unlike most of the trust ports, all the non-executive directors of the Port of Tyne Authority are appointed by the Secretary of State, so it is a quango.
I have raised the issue of the port of Tyne on two occasions. The first was 16 years ago, when I was concerned about the reclamation of the Jarrow Slake. The Secretary of State knows how to step over homeless people sleeping rough when he is on his way to the opera, but he probably does not know a great deal about the Jarrow Slake. It was an area of mud ponds between the River Tyne and the road that runs from South Shields to the Tyne tunnel. They were used as curing ponds for large baulks of timber. I recall that, as a small child, I played on those baulks of timber.
I raised the matter in 1980, because the reclamation of the Jarrow Slake was taking so long. The Minister who replied to the Adjournment debate then is now the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In fairness to him, I should say that he came up and visited the area after the Adjournment debate. During the debate, I was extremely critical of the port of Tyne, having been involved in negotiations with that body when I was a member of South Tyneside council.
The Jarrow Slake has now been reclaimed. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East referred to it. The Tyne car terminal is now situated on that land, from where Nissan recently exported its 300,000th car. It used to be mudflats. It was reclaimed and developed using the reserves of the port of Tyne. It is now one of the best car exporting facilities in the United Kingdom. I must give the Port of Tyne Authority credit for that.
The second time I raised the issue was on 22 May this year, during one of the Adjournment debates prior to the Whitsun recess. I pointed out that the Tyne Improvement Commission was set up in 1850, and that it did a tremendous job in excavating 50 million tonnes of soil to make the Tyne a port and to allow it to deal with large ships. The commission ran until 1968, when the present Port of Tyne Authority was set up.

1227
Under the direction of the Port of Tyne Authority, the port today is one of the most efficient and flexible in Europe—which is why the Secretary of State wants to flog it off. If the port was not a success, the Government would not get a buyer. In the past 12 years, the authority has invested more than £45 million in berths and equipment and played a major role, with the development agencies, in trying to attract investment and new industries to our region. The authority has large capital reserves and no outstanding debts. I can imagine why the four potential buyers are keen to get their hands on the assets of the Port of Tyne Authority.
The port's newly appointed managing director, David Clifford, has said:
"The Port of Tyne has carefully prepared itself for the needs of the 21st century, and now looks for increased support from port users, for cargoes starting and finishing their journeys in the region."
Like everyone else in the area, I am opposed to the privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East referred to a number of local groups, and I wish to go through the list of representations made to the Secretary of State. What is the good of the Secretary of State having consultation if, after everyone he has consulted has stated that they are opposed to it, he decides to privatise?
Some 173 employees of the PTA wrote to the Secretary of State, and all 173 opposed the privatisation scheme. Eight trade unions wrote in, and all eight opposed the scheme. Seventy-three members of the general public wrote in, and 62 opposed the scheme. The Secretary of State must have some relatives in the area, because 11 people did not oppose the scheme. All five local authorities in the area opposed the privatisation. Some 21 port users were opposed to the privatisation, as were local peers and Members of Parliament. My hon. Friend the Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) is the secretary of the northern group of Labour Members, and he wrote in on behalf of the group. I also wrote in, but my letter is not included in the list of representations. Another 17 organisations wrote in; all were opposed.
I wish to elaborate on what my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East said. Among those who wrote in to oppose the scheme was the Tyne Port Users Association, which has a membership of 37 companies with over 8,000 employees. It wrote:
"We are a non-political affiliated organisation and are extremely concerned about the proposed Government's privatisation scheme".
Warrant Distribution Ltd. is a relative newcomer to the port of Tyne; it established there only in 1993. It said:
"We see no justification in commercial terms for privatising the port at this time, and can only imagine that the Secretary of State's decision is based purely on political dogma."
Shepherd's Scrap Metals—a well-known firm on the Tyne—wrote:
"We have followed the progress of the privatisation with increasing alarm and are dismayed that the Secretary of State has not taken into consideration the views of users of the port".
The Institute of Chartered Shipbrokers said:
"We totally oppose the new proposals outlined by the Secretary of State. It is our opinion that no useful purpose can be gained by privatising the Port of Tyne."
Even the South Shields Conservative association has said that the Minister should have regard to port users. The South Shields Conservative association is not the most
1228
progressive organisation in the country, and I mean progressive with a small "p"; at one time its members would stand in local elections only as "Progressive" candidates. A couple of years ago, they became brave and stood as Conservatives. The result has been that, out of 60 seats in the local authority, they have none. But even that organisation is concerned about the privatisation.
Any reasonable person would take note of that opposition, and no one—other than the four potential buyers—is in favour of the privatisation. Every other organisation, every individual, every trade union and every local authority is opposed to the scheme. The proposals are pure political dogma, and are being brought in at the fag end of a Parliament by a Government who have lost all respect throughout the country. They know for a fact that this is the last possible privatisation.
Originally, the Government wanted three trust ports to be privatised—Dover, Ipswich and the Tyne. The Minister referred to them. We know that the Ipswich privatisation went into Committee, where we opposed it and voted against it. Despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Mr. Cann), that privatisation went through. The privatisation of the port of Dover was stopped after the intervention of Her Royal Highness the Queen Mother and Vera Lynn, who were concerned that a French harbour company might buy the port of Dover. It would be no good singing about the white cliffs of Dover if they were owned by France. That is why the Government dropped that privatisation. In addition, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Shaw) will not be here after the election as he has a marginal seat and no one can save him. Even dropping the privatisation of the port of Dover will not save him.
This proposal has been opposed by everyone in the area, and I hope that it will be opposed by enough hon. Members to kill it tonight.
4.55 pm
Mr. Peter Atkinson: I welcome the proposal, which is an important piece in the jigsaw of the regeneration of the River Tyne. Standing here at nearly 5 pm on a Thursday, in what can be described as a thinly attended House, I am reminded of earlier days when we discussed similar matters. The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) tried to make a brave fist of it, but I seem to have heard the phrases "price increases", "falling standards" and "pure political dogma" before in reference to privatisations. Labour Members used those phrases about British Telecom, British Airways, British Rail, British Steel and British Coal. Every time the Government proposed a privatisation, Opposition Members have stood up to complain.
We know perfectly well, as do consumers, that privatisation is a success. It is not that the companies that have been privatised were failing—many were, but not all—but they have made significant improvements in the way they are run, and I see no reason why the Port of Tyne Authority cannot do the same. The authority has its critics—we are aware of that. Some say that it has allowed its infrastructure to run down over the years; others have said that it has not been diligent enough in dredging the river. Still others believe that it has allowed too big a cash mountain of assets to build up—it was £19 million at one stage, although I believe it is now lower than that.
The criticisms are unfair. The Port of Tyne Authority has had to deal with a difficult period in the development of the river, following the remorseless decline of

1229
traditional industries such as coal shipping, steel and shipbuilding. For the first time, the Tyne now has some prospects of real growth in the new sunrise industries. My hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) mentioned the offshore industry, which will make particular demands on the port. Some companies involved in the offshore business might be interested in the port itself because they would like it to be better designed for their kind of growing business, and it is in such businesses that the Tyne will have a great future.
I will not repeat what my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth said; he set out the case extremely well. I believe that a change of culture will be of considerable benefit to the port. Hon. Members who do not know about the north-east of England—there are not many in the Chamber—should be aware of the tremendous renaissance that has taken place on the river, and everyone should be proud of that. I am proud of the way in which the city of Newcastle and its quayside have developed and of the new developments down the Tyne. They are there because of the operations of organisations such as the Tyne and Wear development corporation and the grants given by the Government.
Above all, the Tyne is recovering because of the Government's economic policies. The Government were brave enough to take tough and painful decisions about the coal industry and about the Swan Hunter shipyard when it ran into trouble. Opposition Members called for greater subsidies for the coal and shipbuilding industries, but the Government's tough decisions have allowed new industries to grow on those sites. Without that, there would not have been a renaissance on the Swan Hunter yard site where, rather than a sunset industry there is a sunrise industry. That is what we must build on, and it is why we want the port in private hands, with new ideas and innovation.
4.59 pm
Mr. Chris Davies: Liberal Democrats want efficient, innovative and successful businesses throughout the country. We oppose the privatisation, because the Port of Tyne Authority is just such an organisation. We have heard how the trustees of the authority are appointed, so it might come as a bit of a surprise that Liberal Democrats should give such backing and praise to an organisation that owes its origins so much to the Secretary of State—but we do.
It is worth hearing what the Secretary of State's appointees have to say to him about the proposal. They have written to him submitting
"that there is overwhelming evidence that privatisation of the Port of Tyne, rather than enhancing the commercial prospects of the Port"
as he suggests,
"would damage customer confidence, jeopardise the Port's prospects at a sensitive time of transition and lead to a loss of trade and investment, with serious implications for the North-East region."
As the hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) rightly said, this is privatisation for privatisation's sake. I listened carefully to the Secretary of State. I had looked forward to hearing convincing arguments that would persuade me that there was some flaw in what I had been told by the Port of Tyne Authority and by those who support its case, and that it was in fact a moribund organisation, the removal and replacement of which by a
1230
body purely in the private sector would be to the benefit of the north-east as a whole, but I found no such arguments in what he said.
The Secretary of State referred only to the general experience that privatisation is beneficial. He suggested that all the evidence was one way, but he produced not evidence but a series of assertions that are challenged not only in the House and by millions of people throughout the country but by many of our strongest economic rivals, who run their infrastructure rather differently from the way in which the Conservatives have run ours over the past 18 years.
The Port of Tyne Authority does not even have to work within the straitjacket of financial restrictions such as those imposed by the Government on the Post Office or on Manchester airport; it is able to invest, and it does. In proportion to its income, the port has invested twice as much as the Medway and Forth ports and three times as much as Tilbury and Clyde, and it has plans to invest a further £15 million in infrastructure improvement over the next five years. It is not sitting on the surplus land but handing it over for development by other organisations.
If the Secretary of State can point to any evidence, I suspect that it will be purely one-sided. His point about declining tonnage demonstrated that we were being given selected figures. He said that the port of Tyne had witnessed a decline in tonnage in recent years, and compared that with the situation on the Clyde. He did not, however, mention that the crucial reason for that is that coal production in the north-east is still declining, whereas in Scotland it has been virtually finished off already.
The Secretary of State did not cite one port user who wants the privatisation to take place. We have heard of some of those who do not want it to take place, and I want to draw attention to some other representations that have been made. For example, the chief executive of Mitsui O S K. Lines—not exactly a small company, but one of the organisations that has made Japan great and had a tremendous impact throughout the world—wrote:
"My colleagues in Japan and Europe all feel strongly that the process and effect of Privatisation of the Port of Tyne will, at the very least, result in instability and uncertainty, which will damage confidence in the region, to the detriment of present and future inward investment."
That is from a Japanese company that has invested heavily in the north-east.
A letter from Color Line, which operates from the international ferry terminal, shipping more than 100,000 passengers a year to Norway, said:
"We regard the Port of Tyne Authority in its present form as giving us very good support, assistance and service … We fear that any major changes in the ownership structure … could have a severe effect on our future operation."
A letter from Banks, which is involved in opencast mining and is not likely to be entirely sympathetic to the views of Opposition Members, said:
"the Tyne Coal Terminal … we consider to be a most efficient and cost effective operation with which we are very pleased … As far as we are concerned the Status Quo is more than satisfactory".
A letter from Stanton Grove, the paper handling company, said:
"The commercial awareness and enterprise of your staff was instrumental in the selection of the Tyne. We cannot see any advantage in privatisation".
That is the verdict of the port users.

1231
Will the Minister tell us which port users are calling for the privatisation to take place? My understanding is that of 333 representations made to the Secretary of State, only four were strongly in favour of the privatisation—and those were from potential bidders.
I do not represent a constituency in the north-east and my area in the north-west is not directly affected by the privatisation, but I am concerned about the implications, as the compulsory privatisation of a major transport undertaking may prove a precursor to an attempt to privatise Manchester airport.
The Port of Tyne Authority is owned by a trust that is dedicated to meeting the needs of those who use the facility and reinvests the money that it makes for that purpose. In that sense, it is similar to Manchester airport which, despite being handicapped by Government restrictions, is ploughing back its profits in investment. If the airport were privatised, I fear that the new owners would milk it for short-term profits rather than invest in the future.
The examples of the Port of Tyne Authority and Manchester airport demonstrate that the quality of a company is affected not only by ownership, but by whether the management has a clear sense of direction, is innovative and runs the operation on sound business lines. That is the case with Manchester airport, the Post Office and the Port of Tyne Authority. I strongly believe that the Secretary of State and his colleagues should keep their hands off them.
5.8 pm
Mr. David Clelland: This is a privatisation too far. I was tempted to say a bridge too far, because the river's bridges are as famous and as potent a symbol of the north as the Tyne itself. Indeed, my constituency is named after the most recognisable of the six main transport crossings between Gateshead and Newcastle.
One consequence of the Government's interference in the locality and the dash-for-cash mentality behind it is that the swing bridge may be permanently disabled and prevented from opening to allow vessels upstream. We are not talking about tall ships—even the local ferry boat cannot pass under the swing bridge unless it is open. Any hope of reviving business or pleasure traffic movements upstream of the bridge will be lost. With the proposed industrial developments along the river banks upstream of the swing bridge, who knows how valuable a transport corridor may be lost as road traffic congestion worsens.
One of the Tyne's many famous sons, Jimmy Nail, recently wrote a song about the Tyne called "Big River". He sings of the river's industrial past and its decline, but also about the spirit of the people and the conviction that the river will again become a centre of activity for the community along its banks. That is already becoming apparent, as the work and plans of the local authorities and development corporation come to fruition.
One line in Jimmy Nail's song goes:
"I was just a kid but it was mine—the coaly Tyne."
Tynesiders look on it as their river. They consider the work of the Port of Tyne Authority as work done on their behalf. That is apparently a naive view in the eyes of the
1232
Government, because they propose that the authority and its publicly held assets should be sold to the highest bidder. Even the Government, in drafting the legislation that governs this process, at least paid lip service to the idea that the views of local people and organisations might be worth considering. They wrote into the legislation a requirement that views should be sought during a consultation period.
In the consultation process on the Port of Tyne Authority document and the Secretary of State's proposals, no fewer than 465 representations were made to the Secretary of State. Only four organisations favoured privatisation; all four were potential bidders for the port. Two of them have no previous history of interest in transport, let alone in ports, but a considerable interest in land and property.
My hon. Friends have given examples of representations made by businesses on the Tyne. The Tyne Port Users Association says:
"May we reiterate that it is the view of the majority of our members that the port must remain under its current status and continue to be established as a regional asset.
We can see no advantages to force on the users of this port, a situation that is purely politically driven without any practical safeguards or protection as to its future."
Warrant Distribution Ltd. says:
"We see no justification in commercial terms for privatising the Port at this time, and can only imagine that the Secretary of State's decision is based purely on political dogma."
Apart from the responses from companies such as that, hon. Members from the region—at least Labour Members—asked to meet the Secretary of State to put our objections to him face to face. He did not find time to meet us, but we were given the privilege of meeting a Minister who sits in the House of Lords. We found it profoundly objectionable that the Members of Parliament who attended that meeting, who are natives of Tyneside and the north, should be told by an unelected, hereditary peer that he knew better than the Tyne's elected representatives what was good for the area. Our objections are shared by the overwhelming majority of people on Tyneside.
I ask Conservative Members—I know that there are not a lot of them—what is the value of a consultation if so huge a majority is completely ignored? The situation contrasts sharply with the Government's change of mind about Dover, which is not to be given the benefits that the hon. Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) outlined. Only two objections were made to the Dover scheme: one from the Queen Mother and one from Vera Lynn. They were considered more important than the 460 individuals, organisations and elected representatives on Tyneside who opposed this privatisation.
The reasons why Tyneside objects so powerfully to privatisation are not emotional, but practical. Even by their own criteria, the Government have no case for this privatisation. All the major stated policy objectives have already been met. My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) went through them and I shall not repeat them. Privatisation threatens trade on the river, capital development and the security of the livelihoods of hundreds of workers. Most of all, it is not wanted by the people. I hope that there are still at least some Conservative Members who believe that the views of local people are important enough to be taken into account.
5.13 pm
Mr. Stephen Byers: It was informative and interesting to hear the Secretary of State speak in favour of the order. The bulk of his contribution had nothing to do with the forced privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority. It was a Cook's tour of other ports in England and Scotland and an argument for the dogma that drives the Conservative party: the need to privatise everything. He would not address the specific proposals before the House, because he knows that there is no sensible or logical argument for compulsory privatisation of the authority. At risk is the success story of the authority over the past 10 years. It is being sacrificed on the political altar of privatisation.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) said, 15 or 20 years ago many hon. Members would not have been prepared to support the continuation of the Port of Tyne Authority. It was inward-looking, would not work in partnership with the local authorities or local industry and was slow at developing strategic parcels of land on the banks of the River Tyne. I remember some 17 years ago, as deputy leader of North Tyneside council, being responsible for making representations to the authority and arguing that it should make progress on developing the river. It was not supportive of those representations. However, the Port of Tyne Authority of 1996 is a different beast from the authority of the early 1980s. It is a body that reflects the needs and aspirations of the local community, that makes a profit and that has played a key part in assisting the region to overcome the difficulties that have been imposed on it by the Government's economic and social policies.
The Secretary of State failed to address several of the key issues that were raised in the representations of local people and communities and the authority. He failed to address properly employment protection or pensions. He failed to address the way in which profits could be stripped out of the port and used for different purposes, diverting money that is made by the port and is currently ploughed back to make it an even greater success story. That money may be used for whatever purpose the successor body determines; it is being taken away from the Tyne, which desperately needs regeneration and investment. It largely needs them because of the failure of the Conservative Government's policies.
The Government are doing what they always do with privatisations. Two principles motivate their privatisation policy: first, to pay off their friends who donate to Tory party funds; secondly, the triumph of political dogma over reason. The compulsory privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority shows them in combination as the driving motives behind the order. If the Government win tonight and force compulsory privatisation of the Port of Tyne Authority, they will stand condemned not only by those who represent the Tyne but by our communities and by the northern region in general.
5.18 pm
Ms Glenda Jackson: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) and to my hon. Friends the Members for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) and for Wallsend (Mr. Byers), who have so passionately defended their constituencies.
1234
When the Ports Bill was introduced in the House in 1991, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said:
"There are always grounds for change in the ports industry; the argument is about the nature of that change and the purpose of it."—[Official Report, 28 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 683.]
That acid test holds true today. Will this enforced privatisation be a change for the better or, as the management, work force and customers claim, a change for the worse?
The Government claim that enforced privatisation brings three benefits. It reduces overmanning and increases productivity; increases competitiveness and investment in the ports and their infrastructure; and enables ports to extend the scope of their commercial activities, and make better use of surplus land and other assets available to them.
The aim is to achieve better productivity, more investment and a greater expansion of a port's commercial activities. Under the Government's criteria, they are hallmarks of a successful port facility. How does the port of Tyne square up to those tests?
Let us consider the first test of overmanning and productivity. In 1988, the number of workers employed by the port of Tyne exceeded 500; today, that figure is just over 200. In 1988, the payroll costs of the port stood at £7 million annually; but, over the past six years, those costs have fallen by more than 20 per cent. No one in the Labour party takes any pleasure from those figures. Only a fool would rejoice in job losses of that scale, but we appreciate the competitive nature of the ports industry and the requirement of the port of Tyne management to keep their cost base to a minimum. They have done that. They have drastically reduced labour costs and significantly increased productivity without the heavy hand of enforced privatisation. The efficiencies that the Government define as indicative of a successful port have already been achieved by the port of Tyne.
The Government's second benchmark is the achievement of greater competition and investment. How has the port of Tyne, starved of the perceived benefits of privatisation, performed in that regard? As the Secretary of State said, in the first two years following privatisation, the five privatised trust ports increased their pre-tax surplus by an average of 97 per cent. The right hon. Gentleman attempted to dismiss the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) that, over the same period, the port of Tyne had increased its pre-tax surplus by 172 per cent. The port has also embarked upon a capital investment programme worth more than £20 million. Does that programme expose the port as an enterprise failing to develop its full potential? Of course not. It exposes it as an enterprise that is growing and thriving, and the last thing that any such enterprise requires is interference from the Government.
The port of Tyne has already met two of the Government's criteria for a successful port facility. The third one is that a port should stimulate the development of land surplus to its requirements. In 1990, more than 100 hectares of the port's land around the Albert Edward dock was vacant. Today, just 23 hectares of it remain vacant, but they are reserved for operational and port-related use. The number of tenanted areas has

1235
increased by 72 per cent. over the same period. The remaining port land no longer required for port purposes is being developed as the Royal Quays project. That project will include the development of residential housing, a large public park and a vast expansion of leisure and shopping facilities. That project should be well known to the Secretary of State, because, when he was a Housing Minister, he had the honour of launching work on it.
The port of Tyne has achieved the efficiency gains sought by the Government. It has earned profits and sustained an investment programme greater than those of the privatised trust ports. It has a development and diversification programme that enjoys the personal stamp of approval of the Secretary of State. Why, then, do the Government insist on placing all that at risk by forcing through the unwanted privatisation? Will enforced privatisation represent a good deal for the taxpayer?
In 1992, the port of Medway was sold for £29 million, of which £13 million was returned to the taxpayer. Eighteen months later, it was resold for £103 million, representing a loss to the taxpayer of £90 million on the total sale, or £50 million based on the Government's levy formulae. In addition, of the ?169 million owed to the Government after the sale of all five trust ports, just £54 million had been recovered by March 1992. In March 1993, by the time the Government caught up with the remaining £114 million that they were owed, the loss of interest amounted to a further loss to the taxpayer of £4.5 million. We can safely discount benefit to the taxpayer as a reason for proceeding with the privatisation of the port of Tyne.
When the Ports Bill was introduced, the then Secretary of State, the right hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Pentlands (Mr. Rifkind), placed great importance on the consultation process. He said:
"it would not automatically follow that other ports falling within the category would be privatised. That would depend on the response of the port and of other local interests." —[Official Report, 28 January 1991; Vol. 184, c. 675.]
Why is the current Secretary of State not showing the same regard for the port and its users? According to his Department's list of representations, 307 were received, of which 292 were opposed to privatisation along the lines currently proposed. The Port of Tyne Authority has received a further 330 representations, of which 315 were opposed to the Government's privatisation.
Several hon. Members have referred to the letter from Mr. K. Mori, the senior managing director of Mitsui OSK Lines, in which he referred to his concerns. He values his contacts with the port of Tyne so much that his company has named one of its new container vessels Tyne.
Are the Government truly prepared to put the understanding, trust and levels of inward investment referred to in Mr. Mori's letter at risk because of their ideological dogma? Despite the arguments put by the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson), that is what the privatisation is all about. It is not about making the port of Tyne more efficient, more profitable or more commercially diverse. It is not about providing a good
1236
deal for the taxpayer. It has nothing do with reflecting the needs of the port's management, work force or customers.
The privatisation proposal is simply the Government's desperate attempt to shore up their bankrupt principle that privatisation is not just the best option, but the only one. The Government do not care how many jobs are lost, how much investment is put at risk and how many successful enterprises will be forced to the wall in the process.
When hon. Members come to vote on the motion, they must ask themselves whether they truly want to place the success of the port of Tyne at risk for nothing more than ideological dogma.
5.25 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Bowis): First, I should like to thank everyone who has taken part in the debate, in particular the Opposition spokeswoman, the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Ms Jackson). The last time we met across the Dispatch Box, I was concerned about the time taken up in the debate. Today, I congratulate her on doing a "Patrick Moore", given the speed with which she delivered her speech. We can now get on with the rest of the debate, having had that whirr of tirade and ideological flourish from the hon. Lady.
This has been a useful and revealing debate. We have seen ideology flow back through the window of the parliamentary Labour party as well as heard genuine concern expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State went out of his way to answer those concerns, and I shall try to do the same.
I should like to respond to the points made by the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland)—I was tempted to call him the hon. Member for swing bridge. I believe that he is confused on the swing bridge proposal. The proposal to remove the duty to maintain and repair the machinery of the open moving platform on the swing bridge came from the Port of Tyne Authority. He can rest assured that it is not part of our proposal, and will not be a consequence of the privatisation.
I always listen to the right hon. Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) with great respect and interest. He raised a number of points based on his knowledge of the area, and expressed particular concern about the assets of the port. There is no evidence of asset stripping at the ports.
Ms Glenda Jackson: Come on.
Mr. Bowis: Perhaps the hon. Lady would like to provide any evidence she has of such asset stripping. Evidence suggests the contrary: in each case, the new regime has led to the development and improvement of facilities. My right hon. Friend was able to quote from newspapers and reports that highlight that fact. I repeat: any gain on land disposed of during the first 10 years after privatisation, whether by way of sale or long lease, will be subject to a clawback levy, which will be payable on a sliding scale. It will be set at 25 per cent. for the first five years, 20 per cent. for the sixth and seventh years and 10 per cent. for the eighth to 10th years.

1237
The right hon. Member for Jarrow also asked what was the point of representation. The point is that the Government listen. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman listened carefully to what my right hon. Friend said, so he will he aware of the evidence that my right hon. Friend took on board views expressed in those representations. He made specific pledges in terms of the employment and pension interests of the work force at the port. In that regard, he has offered to listen to representations on those matters. He also acknowledged that he did not accept certain other representations and gave the reasons why they were not relevant—either they were unnecessary, because of previous legislation, or they would have damaged the future health of the port.
The hon. Member for Oxford, East (Mr. Smith) made three main points. He, too, talked about consultation and, like other hon. Members, balanced the numbers of representations received. I have to tell him that the overall number of letters and representations was small, and I hope he will not be too disappointed to learn that 129 came in a standard form that had clearly been prepared and supplied by the authority itself. He may want to know how I can be so sure of that—it was because so many of them came in a Port of Tyne Authority envelope. There was evidence of the authority's view and we looked carefully at that view and at the others that were expressed.
The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the uncertainty, to which my response is, "Fine—so let's get on with it." The sooner the order has been passed and we can move to the next step, consulting everyone as we go, the sooner we can end that uncertainty.
The hon. Gentleman said that this privatisation was being done for the sake of privatisation, but that is not true. It is being done for the sake of the port of Tyne, because we believe that it can be managed even better in the private sector.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Mr. Trotter) for his rigorous analysis. He looked with a questioning eye at the whole proposal and came down in its favour. He pointed out that the port of Tyne is no longer in the list of top ports and showed that, although Nissan and other inward investment projects have shown the potential in the area, it needs a new boost.
My hon. Friend confirmed that employees are well protected by legislation and made an especially important point about employee share ownership. That is one of the great benefits of the proposal, because without shares there can be no employee share ownership. He rightly highlighted that as a benefit to those working in the port. He also mentioned the disposal of operational land. That cannot, of course, be disposed of without the approval of the planning authority.
My hon. Friend referred to fair charges and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State, and pointed out that that right has not been exercised in respect of those ports that have been privatised so far. That is an encouraging message and my hon. Friend's analysis was fair.
1238
My hon. Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) said, rightly, that we have heard it all before—we hear Opposition Members' shock horror and their ideological frisson and then everything turns out well. In a few years' time, they will turn around and say that they were never really against the plan—a few years after that, they will try to claim parentage as well.
All hon. Members on both sides of the House share a wish to see the port of Tyne flourish. We believe that that is most likely to occur if the port is in the private sector. That is no criticism of the port of Tyne's past or its recent record—it is simply a fact. The port can do better, it will do better and, with this order, we will make it happen sooner.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 234, Noes 222.

division No. 27]

[5.33 pm

AYES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Alexander, Richard

Day, Stephen

Alison, Michael (Selby)

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Devlin, Tim

Amess, David

Dicks, Terry

Arbuthnot, James

Dorrell, Stephen

Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Ashby, David

Dover, Den

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Dykes, Hugh

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Baker, Kenneth (Mole V)

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Batiste, Spencer

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bellingham, Henry

Evennett, David

Beresford, Sir Paul

Faber, David

Biffen, John

Fabricant, Michael

Body, Sir Richard

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Booth, Hartley

Fishbum, Dudley

Boswell, Tim

Forman, Nigel

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Forth, Eric

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bowis, John

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Boyson, Sir Rhodes

French, Douglas

Brandreth, Gyles

Fry, Sir Peter

Brazier, Julian

Gale, Roger

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Gallie, Phil

Browning, Mrs Angela

Gardiner, Sir George

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Gamier, Edward

Bums, Simon

Gill, Christopher

Burt, Alistair

Goodlad, Alastair

Butler, Peter

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Butterfill, John

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Carlisle, Sir Kenneth (Linc'n)

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Carrington, Matthew

Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)

Carttiss, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Cash, William

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Channon, Paul

Gummer, John

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Hague, William

Clappison, James

Hamilton, Sir Archibald

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Hanley, Jeremy

Colvin, Michael

Hannam, Sir John

Congdon, David

Hargreaves, Andrew

Conway, Derek

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Hawkins, Nick

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hawksley, Warren

Cope, Sir John

Hayes, Jerry

Cormack, Sir Patrick

Heald, Oliver

Couchman, James

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Cran, James

Hendry, Charles

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Heseltine, Michael

Curry, David

Hicks, Sir Robert

Davies, Quentin (Stamf'd)

Higgins, Sir Terence

1239

Hogg, Douglas (Grantham)

Rifkind, Malcolm

Horam, John

Robathan, Andrew

Hordem, Sir Peter

Roberts, Sir Wyn

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Roe, Mrs Marion

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Rowe, Andrew

Hunter, Andrew

Rumbold, Dame Angela

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Sackville, Tom

Jessel, Toby

Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Shephard, Mrs Gillian

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Jopling, Michael

Shersby, Sir Michael

Key, Robert

Sims, Sir Roger

King, Tom

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Kirkhope, Timothy

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Knapman, Roger

Soames, Nicholas

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Speed, Sir Keith

Kynoch, George

Spencer, Sir Derek

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Lamont, Norman

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Lang, Ian

Spink, Dr Robert

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Spring, Richard

Legg, Barry

Sproat, lain

Leigh, Edward

Stanley, Sir John

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Steen, Anthony

Lidington, David

Stephen, Michael

Lilley, Peter

Stem, Michael

Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

Stewart, Allan

Lord, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Luff, Peter

Sumberg, David

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Sweeney, Walter

MacGregor, John

Sykes, John

MacKay, Andrew

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Maclean, David

Taylor, Sir Teddy

McLoughlin, Patrick

Temple-Morris, Peter

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Thomason, Roy

Madel, Sir David

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

Major, John

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Malone, Gerald

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Mans, Keith

Trend, Michael

Marlow, Tony

Trotter, Neville

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Viggers, Peter

Merchant, Piers

Waldegrave, William

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Walden, George

Moate, Sir Roger

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Ward, John

Nelson, Anthony

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Waterson, Nigel

Newton, Tony

Watts, John

Nicholls, Patrick

Wells, Bowen

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Whitney, Ray

Norris, Steve

Whittingdale, John

Oppenheim, Phillip

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Ottaway, Richard

Willetts, David

Page, Richard

Wilshire, David

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Pawsey, James

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Wolfson, Mark

Porter, David

Yeo, Tim

Portillo, Michael

Young, Sir George

Rathbone, Tim

Renton, Tim

Tellers for the Ayes:

Richards, Rod

Mr. Timothy Wood and

Riddick, Graham

Mr. Sebastian Coe.

NOES

Anger, Nick

Barron, Kevin

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Battle, John

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Bayley, Hugh

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Beith, A J

Ashton, Joseph

Bell, Stuart

Austin-Walker, John

Benn, Tony

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bennett, Andrew F

Barnes, Harry

Benton, Joe

1240

Bermingham, Gerald

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Berry, Roger

Hoey, Miss Kate

Betts, Clive

Hoon, Geoffrey

Blunkett, David

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Boateng, Paul

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Bradley, Keith

Hoyle, Doug

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)

Hughes, Robert (Ab'd'n N)

Burden, Richard

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Byers, Stephen

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Callaghan, Jim

Hutton, John

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Illsley, Eric

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Jamieson, David

Canavan, Dennis

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Cann, Jamie

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Clapham, Michael

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Clelland, David

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Cohen, Harry

Kaufman, Gerald

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Keen, Alan

Corbyn, Jeremy

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Corston, Ms Jean

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Cousins, Jim

Khabra, Piara S

Cox, Tom

Kilfoyle, Peter

Cummings, John

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lewis, Terry

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Litherland, Robert

Dafis, Cynog

Livingstone, Ken

Dalyell, Tam

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Loyden, Eddie

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

McAllion, John

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

McKelvey, William

Denham, John

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dixon, Don

McLeish, Henry

Dobson, Frank

Maclennan, Robert

Dowd, Jim

McNamara, Kevin

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

MacShane, Denis

Eagle, Ms Angela

McWilliam, John

Eastham, Ken

Madden, Max

Etherington, Bill

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Faulds, Andrew

Mandelson, Peter

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Marek, Dr John

Flynn, Paul

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foster, Derek

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fraser, John

Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Martlew, Eric

Gapes, Mike

Meacher, Michael

Garrett, John

Meale, Alan

Gerrard, Neil

Michael, Alun

Gilbert, Dr John

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Godman, Dr Norman A

Milburn, Alan

Godsiff, Roger

Miller, Andrew

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morgan, Rhodri

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Morley, Elliot

Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)

Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Grocott, Bruce

Mudie, George

Gunnell, John

Mullin, Chris

Hain, Peter

Murphy, Paul

Hall, Mike

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hanson, David

O'Brien, William (Normanton)

Hardy, Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Harman, Ms Harriet

Olner, Bill

Harvey, Nick

Orme, Stanley

Hattersley, Roy

Pickthall, Colin

Heppell, John

Pike, Peter L

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

Hinchliffe, David

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

1241

Prescott, John

Steinberg, Gerry

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Stevenson, George

Purchase, Ken

Stott, Roger

Quin, Ms Joyce

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Radice, Giles

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Randall, Stuart

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Raynsford, Nick

Thumham, Peter

Rendel, David

Timms, Stephen

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Tipping, Paddy

Rogers, Allan

Touhig, Don

Rooker, Jeff

Turner, Dennis

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Tyler, Paul

Rowlands, Ted

Walker, Sir Harold

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Wallace, James

Sedgemore, Brian

Walley, Ms Joan

Sheerman, Barry

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Shore, Peter

Wareing, Robert N

Short, Ms Clare

Wicks, Malcolm

Simpson, Alan

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Skinner, Dennis

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Winnick, David

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Worthington, Tony

Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)

Wright, Dr Tony

Snape, Peter

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Soley, Clive

Spearing, Nigel

Tellers for the Noes:

Spellar, John

Mr. Greg Pope and

Steel, Sir David

Mrs. Bridget Prentice.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Port of Tyne Authority (Transfer of Undertaking) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 6th November, be approved.

Social Security
5.45 pm
Mr. Henry McLeish: I beg to move,
That the Social Security (Disability Living Allowance and Claims and Payments) Amendment Regulations 1996 (S.1.. 1996. No. 1436), dated 4th June 1996, a copy of which was laid before this House on 7th June in the last Session of Parliament, he revoked.
I oppose the regulations, and I hope that the whole House will support us in voting against them.
Unfortunately, this is another example of the Government trying to pass regulations after they have been implemented in the country. Equally important, it smacks of four characteristics of the Government.
First, the Government have a cavalier attitude to Parliament. They make and lay orders, but proceed to implement them without any Member—
Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. McLeish: Not at this stage.
Mr. Hughes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McLeish: Not at this stage.
Mr. Hughesrose—
Hon. Members: Sit down.
Mr. McLeish: On that cavalier attitude—
Mr. Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to mislead the House about what went on between the parties when, as everyone knows, Labour asked for the debate to be delayed? Thai is why the change was introduced before the debate took place.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. Luckily, the Chair does not know any of these things.
Mr. McLeish: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can understand Conservative Members' excitement.
The Government's cavalier attitude to the House means that orders are made and laid and six months later we have a debate on the regulations. That is a disgrace and a scandal.
The second characteristic is the Government's lack of courtesy towards, and lack of consideration of, voluntary organisations. Through the Social Security Advisory Committee those organisations are asked to make representations, but when they do, the Government ignore the volume of representations that have been made.
Thirdly, the Government show contempt for the Social Security Advisory Committee. It is charged with seriously considering some of the most important regulations that pass through the House. The committee does its job well, but in the case of the regulations before us —not for the first time —the Government have refused to acknowledge its wisdom and judgment.

1243
Finally, we have the ultimate contempt—contempt for the people at the sharp end of the changes that have been made, who are some of the most vulnerable individuals in this country.
In my opinion, those are the characteristics of a Government who have been here too long and who now see only a process ahead instead of individuals who will be affected by the regulations.
It is important to place on the record the views that were expressed by many of the voluntary organisations. Of necessity, the debate will be brief, but that is due only to the procedures of the House. This is a vital matter. Under the former rules, disability living allowance was generally not affected by a hospital stay. On 31 July 1996, regulations came into force to the effect that the mobility component of the allowance generally ceases after a person has spent four weeks as an in-patient—12 weeks in the case of a child. Of course, those regulations are being debated on 5 December 1996.
We are discussing the mobility component of the disability living allowance. I want to distinguish that from the other part—the care component.
It is worth noting the process which led to today's debate. In January this year the Secretary of State sought the views of the Social Security Advisory Committee regarding the draft regulations. On 15 January, the SSAC invited representations from voluntary organisations, and 189 organisations and individuals responded. That information was imparted to the Secretary of State on 12 March, the orders were made on 7 June and they came into force on 13 July.
It is remarkable that the overwhelming majority of respondents did not like the Government's proposals and advanced a reasoned case on their behalf. It appears that the care in the community Scottish working group comprising Age Concern and many different councils—from the Scottish Council for Spastics to single parents and the Scottish National Federation for the Welfare of the Blind—was not consulted. I ask the Minister to explain today why a part of the United Kingdom much beloved by the Conservatives was simply ignored in the consultation process.
Dr. Norman A. Godman: For some strange reason, the Department of Social Security also excluded the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from the consultation process. Its director, Dr. Dyer, has pointed out to every Scots Member of Parliament that, by way of the Crosby report mechanisms, that money is spent constructively and imaginatively in the overwhelming majority of hospitals in Scotland caring for those with mental health problems.
Mr. McLeish: My hon. Friend, who takes an active interest in these matters, makes an excellent point. I hope that the Minister will respond to it, as it reinforces our belief that the measures are ill conceived, have been rushed through and will not assist those organisations which represent the vulnerable. Organisations such as Mencap and MIND—the National Association for Mental Health—are at the front line in defending the interests of vulnerable people. I could mention more such organisations, but time does not permit.
1244
Sadly, the Government have failed to justify the regulations—and probably the nation is not surprised by their attitude. However, I hope that the Minister will try to justify their introduction today. I remind him of the comments of the Secretary of State for Social Security in his 1995 statement on the uprating of benefits. He said:
"It cannot be right to pay people who are unable to use the benefit for the purpose intended and who are already having most of their needs met by the taxpayer."
That proposition has been completely and utterly demolished by every organisation that responded to the consultation.
The Secretary of State then moved to the real reason for the measures, when he said:
"We believe the move is justified in ensuring that taxpayers' money goes to those best placed to benefit from it."
That same kind of targeting has led to a 40 per cent. lack of take-up of benefit—1 million British pensioners who are entitled to income support do not receive it. That is the sort of targeting that the Secretary of State is happy to pursue. The SSAC decided that it could not recommend proceeding with the proposals—that in itself is a damning indictment—and urged the Government to consider several points if they decided to go ahead. However, the Government accepted only one—that a linking rule should be introduced in determining the 12-month period for transitional protection.
Why are the regulations so objectionable? First, false assumptions have been made about the lack of mobility needs of long-stay patients and the meeting of those needs by the national health service. The fact-finding exercise carried out by the DSS was fundamentally flawed as it did not consult patients or those directly responsible for their day-to-day care. Secondly, long-stay patients in particular are often in hospitals in isolated areas and the mobility component can be used to enable them to make and receive visits. That is even more important when young children are involved.
Thirdly, there is evidence that in many cases the mobility component is used imaginatively and constructively to enhance the quality of life of long-stay patients. Unspent balances are evidence of poor organisation and provision rather than a lack of mobility need.
Fourthly, patients in NHS homes and hospitals will be worse off than those in homes provided by other bodies, even though care provision and needs may be similar. The proposals run counter to the efforts to transfer care from a hospital to a community base. That is an important consideration if we want community care to work.
The transitional protection does not include people who have been in hospital for less than a year and who will lose benefit at four weeks. Furthermore, the exclusion of those in special hospitals, secure units and those detained in low-security hospitals effectively puts them in the same position as convicted prisoners rather than patients. That is inexcusable—but it is a reflection of the Government's mindset.
The nation has spoken through its voluntary organisations to reject the proposal. The Social Security Advisory Committee has listened to their views and come to the same conclusion. I believe that the Opposition parties oppose the regulations, so why do the Conservatives continue to advocate the changes? Is the Minister aware that they are bad regulations? Is he aware

1245
that the lives of vulnerable people will be made worse by a decision taken behind closed doors which rejected other comments?
Even at this late stage—six months after implementing the regulations—the Government must think again. Their record is littered with disability living allowance-type measures. No thought has been given to the implications. At the end of the day, it is not Members of Parliament or Ministers who will have to pick up the pieces, pay the costs or suffer the problems. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) makes idle, mindless interruptions from a sedentary position. We are discussing an issue that may affect 45,000 people in the first year. The hon. Gentleman should repeat to his constituents at the sharp end of Government policy the sort of thing that he says here.
Mr.Robert G. Hughes: Perhaps the difference between the hon. Gentleman and me is that I do just that. The hon. Gentleman simply makes promises without suggesting where the money will come from. That is dishonest.
Mr. McLeish: If Conservative Members read Hansard, they will see that no promises have been made. I have given a commitment to oppose the regulations today. In a short time from now we shall be voting against them—and rightly so.
5.56 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Andrew Mitchell): I shall set out for the House the reasons why we have taken the steps that we are debating today. This is undoubtedly a sensitive and difficult area and it is clear that some hon. Members have concerns. There are serious issues involved, and I shall deal with them by examining the detailed reasoning behind the decision. I hope to persuade the House that our decision, although difficult, is right and fair.
I shall pick up two points from the opening remarks of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. McLeish). First, he referred to the Government's cavalier treatment of the House of Commons. I must take him to task on that point. As he knows, the regulations are subject to the negative procedure: they do not need the approval of the House unless someone prays against them, as occurred today. They are law until they are annulled. [Interruption.] I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Mr. Griffiths) that the timing of the debate was agreed through the usual channels. He should know that we intended to discuss the regulations before the end of the Session, in July. However, following agreement through the usual channels, the debate was deferred until today. I make it very clear that there is no question of any cavalier treatment of the House.
Mr. Alan Howarth: The Minister observes correctly that it was originally expected to debate and decide the measure in the House at the end of July. Will he therefore explain why on 15 June the Department circulated leaflets—presumably to 1 million claimants of the mobility component—informing them
1246
that there would be changes in the law which might affect their disability living allowance? Why do the Government take Parliament's assent for granted?
Mr. Mitchell: As the hon. Gentleman knows, that matter was raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Grant). At this remove I cannot remember precisely what the point was, but I assure him that the matter was dealt with at the time. We had no intention of playing fast and loose with the law. I have explained that there is no question of any cavalier treatment of the House because the decision was made through the usual channels—which include the Labour party.
Dr. Godman: Why was the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland excluded from the consultation process in 1995?
Mr. Mitchell: When we raised that matter with the Department of Health, we also raised it with the two territorial Departments, and it was discussed prior to the announcement made in 1995. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some progress, I shall come to the points that he made about Scotland.
The hon. Member for Fife, Central made an allegation about cavalier treatment of the Social Security Advisory Committee. I can assure him that there is no question of that having taken place. We gave the SSAC's recommendations serious consideration. We responded in detail in Cm 3233, which was laid at the same time as the regulations. I recommend that the hon. Gentleman looks at that paper, because it sets out in great detail our comments about the views of the SSAC. It also, as he mentioned, accepted the recommendation to include linking periods for people afforded protection. I assure him that there was no question of any cavalier treatment of the SSAC.
The hon. Gentleman's third allegation—that this was an attack on a very vulnerable group—does not bear scrutiny. I will, if I may, take the House through the Government's thinking on the proposal.
In 1992, the Government introduced disability living allowance, which replaced and extended the help formerly available through attendance and mobility allowances. We carried forward existing entitlements and introduced two new lower rates of benefit, one for care and one for mobility. I am sure that the House will recognise and praise the fine record that we have on helping sick and disabled people. The figures make that clear.
Spending on benefits for sick and disabled people has quadrupled in real terms since 1979 from £5 billion to £22 billion. They form the second largest component in the entire social security budget, and spending is budgeted to continue rising. Planned spending on disability living allowance alone in 1995–96 is at £3.7 billion. Nearly 3 million people now get help with care and mobility needs, compared with just 420,000 in 1979. That is a sixfold increase in the number of people we are able to help and a record of which any Government can be justly proud.
Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Organisations which represent people with disabilities such as the Action Group in Edinburgh, the patients council of the Royal Edinburgh hospital, and Enable, are saying—

1247
as Hugh Stewart, the depute director says in his letter, of which the Minister has a copy—that very vulnerable people who have been helped while in hospital to be supported by parents if they are mentally handicapped or to support themselves if they are mentally ill, have been helped by the mobility allowance component, allowing them to get out of hospital and to lead normal lives in an environment which in itself will be artificial. Had the Minister considered that, listened to those groups and made an exception, he would have had the agreement of the whole House, but the despicable decision to try to squeeze the budget and penalise those people means that he is alone with a few of his hon. Friends in pushing this measure through the House.
Mr. Mitchell: It is a pity that the hon. Gentleman did not acknowledge what I was saying when he intervened. There has been a colossal increase in support for sick and disabled people. That was the point that I was making. I will deal with the other points that he made in a moment.
The figures for DLA are remarkable, and I should like to set them out for the House. At the time of the last general election, in 1992, we spent £2 billion on DLA. In 1993–94, that figure rose to £2.8 billion—an increase of just under £1 billion in that year alone. Last year, it increased again to £3.1 billion—up a further £350 million. This year the estimated outturn is £3.7 billion—a further rise of just over £550 million. Next year, planned spending is £4.4 billion—an increase of nearly £700 million. By 1998–99, DLA is expected to cost £5.5 billion. By any yardstick, the extra money that we are spending on DLA each year is immense.
No one should be in any doubt. This is not principally about saving money. We are prepared to spend money to assist disabled people where justified.
Expenditure is rising and on such a scale that it should be crystal clear to every hon. Member that without effective targeting we shall not as a country be able to continue affording DLA. My first point, therefore, is that this is about targeting DLA mobility and not about cutting disability benefits. But targeting effective support where it is most needed means taking a long, hard look at our priorities, across all benefits, and sometimes making difficult decisions. It is clearly unfair to exclude disability benefit from sensible scrutiny. We need to examine all aspects of current provision to be certain that decisions made about benefit entitlement and payability are still sustainable in the current financial climate.
As the House will appreciate, DLA is intended to help with the extra costs associated with disability. A re-examination of the arrangements by which payment of the DLA mobility component was unaffected by periods in hospital persuaded us that the extra costs associated with a disabling condition do change while a person is in national health service accommodation. I should like to say a little about our conclusions on that.
DLA forms an integral part of a disabled person's income. They are free to spend it as they choose. That seems to me to be a perfectly proper and reasonable state of affairs when someone is living in the community. We can all think of the extra costs that might be associated with limited mobility—for example, higher heating bills, higher laundry bills, paying someone else to do the
1248
shopping—but the same considerations do not apply while someone is in national health service accommodation. Patients in national health service accommodation have most of their needs met free of charge. Only a small proportion of patients receive DLA mobility component, but hospitals make no distinction between those who do and those who do not when identifying basic mobility needs and seeking to meet them.
As hon. Members know, it is a fundamental duty of the national health service that it meets the basic mobility needs of people in its care. In addition, I can tell the House that NHS trusts will take account of these changes and set their priorities accordingly.
I find it very hard to accept that mobility needs continue unchanged on admission to hospital, and it is certainly not clear what additional costs disabled patients have to bear. Admission to hospital already affects most social security benefits, and the DLA care component has always been withdrawn after four weeks in hospital. This change has brought payment of the DLA mobility component into line with that.
I wish to reassure the House that these changes do not affect a person's underlying entitlement to the DLA mobility component. When we are advised that a person has been discharged, DLA payments will automatically resume at the full rate of entitlement. The changes affect the payment arrangements of DLA that suspend benefit after four weeks in hospital, or after 12 weeks in the case of children receiving DLA. They reinstate the benefit once the person has been discharged and they provide special arrangements where a patient is temporarily discharged from hospital anticipating a return within 28 days, when payments will be calculated at the daily rate of a person's full entitlement for each full day out of hospital.
Mencap and others have criticised the proposals as confusing. I shall try to clear up that confusion. Simply put, those affected by the changes are people who, for benefit purposes, are treated as hospital in-patients. The key consideration is whether the national health service is responsible for maintaining the benefit recipient free of charge wherever they are accommodated. I make it clear to the House that that is nothing new. Exactly the same factors apply to other social security benefits.
In making the changes, however, we have sought to be sensitive to the needs of existing long-term hospital patients and people who choose to take part in the Motability scheme, by incorporating certain protections from the change. The protection acknowledges that existing long-term patients have reasonable expectations that benefit payments will continue, and that long-term patients have certain costs associated with restricted mobility, although basic needs are fully met by the national health service, but that they spend only a part of their benefit on those costs.
The protection arrangements also recognise that there is a unique relationship between the Motability scheme and payment of mobility benefits, and that withdrawal of the mobility component automatically terminates a Motability agreement. Unlike people with private agreements, Motability customers have no scope to make other arrangements to retain their vehicle should their benefit be withdrawn. We believe that the vast majority of people using the Motability scheme do so because they would be unlikely to be able to finance a vehicle or wheelchair any other way.

1249
The overall impact of these changes is being carefully monitored. I can advise the House that, on their introduction, some 7,000 people in hospital were affected by the withdrawal of the DLA mobility component, and around 16,000 existing long-stay patients have benefited from the protection arrangements.
Sir John Hannam: Does my hon. Friend recall that in July I discussed with him and with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State the hardship cases which may arise as a result of the new Motability arrangements? My right hon. Friend agreed to write to the chairman of Motability to ask him to show understanding and flexibility in the arrangements so as to help such hardship cases.
Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is right—I remember those discussions. As my hon. Friend knows, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has undertaken to keep the matter under review, and to discuss any difficulties with the chairman of Motability.
We anticipate that in any one year 5,000 people with Motability agreements will be protected. I am pleased to tell the House that Motability has advised me that there has been virtually no adverse impact on its customers since the changes were implemented. To answer my hon. Friend's specific point, in only three cases has there been a problem due to a breakdown in communication.
Mr. David Lidington: My hon. Friend may recall that we exchanged correspondence about the difficulties experienced by people who are not part of a Motability scheme, but who have made private arrangements for the use of a car or wheelchair. Did his Department undertake research into the means of people with private arrangements when it was decided that they should be treated differently from those who are party to Motability agreements?
Mr. Mitchell: Yes, we carefully considered that precise point, which my hon. Friend has raised with me before on behalf of a constituent. For the reasons that I have given, the changes relate to the direct link with Motability and do not apply to private arrangements.
Mr. Roger Gale: I appreciate that interventions are tiresome, but I assume that my hon. Friend wants us in the Lobby with him tonight. With regard to the private purchase of a vehicle through the mobility allowance, will my hon. Friend assure me and my constituents that the change will not be retrospective? He referred to people who have already entered into contracts, and I am sure that he shares my abhorrence of retrospective legislation. I fully appreciate that people may make different arrangements in the future, but does the change apply to people who have already entered into contracts?
Mr. Mitchell:I fully understand my hon. Friend's point. I assure him that current Motability agreements are protected.
In the current financial climate, we have to question the use of a social security benefit to enhance provision already made from public funds. Indeed, measures relating to the vast majority of benefits specifically exclude anything that smacks of double provision.
1250
In closing, let me make it clear to the House that DLA is one of the fastest growing benefits in the social security system. The figures are on the record and show more eloquently than any words the full extent of our commitment. Spending on DLA alone has increased again this year, by £550 million. Following my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor's Budget, it is set to rise next year by a further £670 million. That takes us to more than £4.25 billion.
That level of extra support and help—which, as the House knows, is not means-tested—can be sustained only if we are clear-sighted about who should receive it. The Government have taken this difficult but fair decision, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State deserves credit for that. Because we have made such decisions, the growth in social security expenditure is now contained, and is less than the rate of growth in the economy as a whole. If we do not take tough decisions, we shall end up in the same position as France and Germany, where strikes and riots accompany welfare reforms, precisely because tough and necessary decisions were not taken at an earlier stage.
The Government are proud of the help that we are giving to 1.5 million people through the mobility component of disability living allowance. The changes have affected about 14,000 people, half of whom have received a degree of protection. I commend them to the House.
6.13 pm
Mr. Alfred Morris:
"It's nothing short of a scandal that this major reversal of policy should have taken effect without the opportunity for Parliament to debate these amending regulations: it's a betrayal of trust."
They are not my words. They are quoted from a statement made to Ministers last summer by Lord Rix, whose long and distinguished services to disabled people, more especially those with severe learning difficulties, have won him the abiding respect of both sides of both Houses of Parliament.
As this House knows, I was the architect of the mobility allowance, from which the mobility component of the disability living allowance derives, when I became the first Minister for disabled people in 1974. That is my credential for intervening briefly in this debate. I do so with deep misgivings about the effect of the regulations in hampering the rehabilitative process, not least in the case of newly disabled people in special hospital units, and damaging the quality of life of patients more generally.
I ask anyone who wants to vote tonight on the merits of these regulations to reflect, before they do so, on their effects on the lives of two young disabled people. The first is a severely disabled girl in her teens, who lives with three other young people in a bungalow on a main road in an area south of London. She has never lived in a hospital. The mobility component of her DLA—which in her own word has now been "slashed"—enabled her mother to visit her and take her home every week, and the staff to take her on outings not covered by the funding of her residential home. But it so happens that the home is funded by the NHS, so she is one of the losers.
Only a few miles away a young woman, also severely disabled and in an almost identical home, but one funded by the local social services authority, still keeps her

1251
mobility money in full. How can such sharply contrasting treatment be defended? Merely to cite the two cases is to condemn the regulations, and I most strongly urge the Minister to stop piling handicap on handicap for extremely vulnerable youngsters solely because they are in accommodation funded by the NHS.
It is against natural justice for the two cases to be treated so differently, and it is demeaning of this House for the Government to seek, by the use of a three-line Whip, to force these regulations through tonight. For many long-term patients in NHS accommodation, the mobility component of the DLA, creatively used as I intended it to be when legislating for the mobility allowance 20 years ago, has been the only means of enhancing their mobility. My fear now, like that of the Disablement Income Group, is that, without recourse to the full mobility component, their quality of life will suffer, that they will have less contact with the outside world and become more isolated. How can anyone in this House possibly justify the imposition of a three-line Whip to achieve that result?
Ministers never tire of saying that they have improved the incomes of disabled people. They pat themselves on the back with a frequency that could endanger their health. But the overall impression they seek to create is phoney. It leaves out of account some huge cuts in spending on disability benefits, of which recent parliamentary questions have established the facts.
Take the example of a question that I tabled about the cost to disabled people of breaking the link I forged in 1975 between invalidity benefit and increases in average earnings. What the Minister's reply showed on 11 November—at column 90 of Hansard—was that, in the last year for which figures are available, 1994–95, disabled people lost over £1 billion in consequence of that one retrograde decision. The reply also showed that, since the decision to break the link first took effect in 1980, the cumulative loss to disabled people by 1995 was £5.99 billion. By now it must exceed £7 billion, which is more than three times the Government's total annual expenditure on the mobility component.
That figure was never volunteered to this House by Ministers. It had to be forced out of them by a parliamentary question, but they cannot be allowed to keep on throwing dust in people's eyes with selective information. These regulations are, in the view of all the organisations of and for disabled people, about cutting public expenditure, and not
"a logical tidying-up of the benefits system"
as Ministers so misleadingly claim.
"Far from being logical, the reversal of policy these regulations seek to confirm is insane; and Parliament should say so."
Again, they are not my words. They, too, are from Lord Rix articulating, as he does so well, the depth of the concern of all the disability organisations to see these regulations rejected by this honourable House tonight.
6.18 pm
Sir John Stanley: I do not have any difficulty with the theory advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Gelding—[Laughter.] —I apologise to my hon. Friend the Minister. His
1252
constituency is, of course, Gedling. I also have no difficulty with the proposition that the Government should avoid double counting on any benefit. I fully endorse the policy that he enunciated, which is the concentration of benefit payments on those who most need them.
My concerns about the regulations stem, first, from the fact that the Government proceeded with them after a study of their likely impact, based on what appears to be a very limited sample of practitioners. In the Command Paper to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, I was struck by the reference to the fact that only six national health service trusts were part of the Department's fact-finding exercise. That seems a limited amount of fact finding on such a sensitive and important issue.
I have conducted my own fact-finding study, as far as I can, in my constituency. I approached the four hospital trusts that cover my constituency—that represents a sample two thirds the size of that used by the Department—and the responses that I received are instructive. Two of the trusts are acute hospitals and two are in the non-acute sector.
Senior staff of the two acute NHS trusts—Kent and Sussex Weald NHS trust and Mid-Kent Healthcare trust—said that the regulations would not give them a problem in regard to the level of care for each patient. I got a different picture from the two non-acute trusts. The Weald of Kent Community NHS trust expressed concerns that a number of its patients, particularly those who had entered into long-term hire purchase or lease agreements for disabled people's cars—those commitments continue while a person is in hospital—would certainly be exposed as a result of the regulations and the withdrawal of the mobility component, unless they had a Motability agreement. There is great concern about that group of people, but my hon. Friend the Minister made light of it.
My most significant concerns were aroused when I spoke to the fourth trust—Maidstone Priority Care NHS trust—which has a number of long-term, severely disabled people in community care, including a number of quadriplegics. We discussed a unit that I know well in Brook street, Snodland, for extremely disabled young people.
I was struck by one sentence in the explanatory memorandum put out by the Department to justify the regulations. It features in appendix 3, paragraph 15 of Command Paper 3233, to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred, and states:
"Patients do not use their DLA for mobility purposes but use the money to buy tobacco, cigarettes, sweets etc."
I most sincerely hope that that unqualified statement does not represent the general views of the Treasury Bench team, because it is not justified.
The severely handicapped people in the unit to which I referred regard that statement is complete bunkum. That severely disabled group of people use the mobility component to finance mobility helpers, who are critical as, almost without exception, all members of the group require one-to-one help every time they leave the unit. If they go anywhere by wheelchair along the pavement, or if they go to the local park or the shopping centre, they require one-to-one help, which means mobility helpers. If they go out in the minibus further afield, they still require such help.

1253
The chief executive of the NHS trust confirmed, sadly, that as a result of the regulations significantly less money will be available to the trust to provide mobility helpers for severely disabled people. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take careful note of that consequence of the regulations. I do not suggest for a moment that that is the generality of the situation, but among some small, but exceptionally deserving and vulnerable groups, that will be the consequence. If my hon. Friend wants to visit Brook street in Snodland, I shall be available to be there with him at any time, so that he can see for himself the situation and the consequences. The Government would have been well advised to conduct a much wider fact-finding exercise, as the Social Security Advisory Committee recommended, before proceeding with the regulations.
On the detail of the regulations, first, I do not accept the logic that the cut-off date for the withdrawal of the mobility component should be the same as that for the care component. The two are inherently different. I accept that when a person goes into hospital, it can safely be assumed that the hospital will, from day one, be responsible for his care. I can certainly understand why it is right to withdraw the care component within four weeks of an adult going into hospital.
Surely the mobility component is different. People can go into hospital, but have continuing liabilities—in terms of both mobility requirements and liabilities—particularly if they have entered into lease or hire purchase arrangements to purchase a disabled car or an electric wheelchair.
I do not see the logic of having different cut-off dates for children and for adults. What is the sense of that in regard to the mobility component? Indeed, one could argue that the cut-off date should be later for adults than for children. I can see no reason why it is only four weeks for adults, but 12 for children. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Minister will reflect that it would have been better to start with a common cut-off date of 12 weeks, if the Government intended to take that route.
Secondly, what is the relationship between the provisions of the regulations and the good scheme that the Government introduced to provide additional funding for electric-powered wheelchairs? That scheme commenced in April. As my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, under the scheme, which in west Kent will produce an extra £126,000 for the purchase of such wheelchairs in this financial year, it is possible for a severely disabled person to have the use of an NHS-provided electric wheelchair, or a voucher for the equivalent amount of money so that he or she can top up the amount.
If someone uses the voucher scheme to get an electric-powered wheelchair, surely that policy will run contrary to that set out in the regulations. If the person uses a voucher, he will incur additional liabilities for the extra costs of additional elements on his wheelchair, and presumably those will be continuing liabilities. The net effect of the regulations will be that, if such people find themselves in hospital, they will have continuing liabilities under the top-up arrangements, and then discover that they will no longer receive the mobility component on which they had relied before entering hospital.
I fully endorse what my hon. Friend the Minister said. The Government have an outstanding record on financial provision for the disabled, and they have an extremely
1254
good record on producing forward-looking new legislation to provide additional legislative help to the disabled. Against that background, it would be regrettable if one of the final legislative measures for disabled people that the Government produced in this Parliament resulted in suffering for some the most vulnerable people in the disabled community. Therefore, I hope that my hon. Friend will review the detailed operation of the regulations extremely carefully, and, if necessary, amend them if it is found that they are not working satisfactorily.
I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House agree that the absolute bottom line is that the disabled community —particularly its most vulnerable element —must not suffer because of the regulations.
6.30 pm
Ms Liz Lynne: These regulations came into force on 1 August 1996 —four months ago. We were denied the chance then to debate them or to vote on them, although they are significant changes for a vast number of disabled people. Tonight we have the opportunity to vote against them, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides the House will consider doing so. The manner in which the regulations were introduced was disgraceful, and it was an absolute insult to disabled people.
It has been suggested that the regulations will affect those only with limited mobility, and that some people will be saving their allowances or spending them on other things. I can assure the House that organisations of and for disabled people say categorically that that is not the case. Even the Department of Social Security no longer feels that hospitals accumulating funds is a serious problem. In response to a parliamentary question from me, the Minister said:
"Departmental Officials had discussions with a number of NHS trusts throughout Great Britain last summer. These suggest that this was a considerable problem in the past but is now rare." —[Official Report, 19 March 1996; Vol. 274, c. 182.]
Existing legislation could be used. Why are the Government not making use of it? The reason is that the Government are not enforcing the legislation as they thought that they would do. They are also ignoring the Social Security Advisory Committee, which stated in its report:
"Our primary recommendation is that these proposals should not proceed in their present form. We regard the care component of disability living allowance as serving a totally different purpose from the mobility component. Whereas care needs are taken care of in hospital and costs do not continue, mobility needs, in general. do continue and the cost of personal transport remains."
The mobility component is essential for disabled people in long-term NHS accommodation —which is funded by the NHS —for their physical and mental well-being. The component helps individuals, particularly in community homes, to retain their independence, and it affects thousands of disabled people. It was a non-means-tested benefit, and it could be claimed during periods of work or periods of care.
Over the months, the Minister has argued that NHS trusts and general practitioner fundholders are providing necessary recuperation and rehabilitation, so the need should not be met by the DSS. If the regulations are expected to result in savings of £40 million —which is the figure that I heard at one time from the Government, although, today, the Minister said that it is not a matter of cost cutting —where will those savings come from,

1255
if disabled people are not to be denied their independence? If the NHS offers provision of the same mobility, surely costs will be transferred from the Department of Social Security to the NHS. One Department or another will have to pick up the bill.
If the Government say that the mobility component is being misused, where is the evidence of it? I have seen no evidence for that claim, and disabled people's organisations have seen none.
The other flaw in the regulations is that the mobility component was a right, whereas NHS services are not. Perhaps trusts will spend the money that they receive on other things. Another problem that I can foresee concerns mental health patients. If they will no longer receive the component after four weeks, will not they be encouraged to leave hospital before the end of that period, to ensure that they continue to receive it? Will that not be dangerous for some of those patients?
The regulations have already caused problems, and I sincerely hope that they will be revoked tonight.
6.35 pm
Mr.Robert G. Hughes: This debate on the disability living allowance is possible only because of its success. It would be wrong for the debate to end without paying an enormous tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott), who introduced it. He has, regrettably, been mentioned in the news this week, but his record shows that he has been the most successful Minister for disabled people ever.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea persuaded the Treasury and his Government colleagues to devote enormous amounts of extra taxpayers' money to fund the allowance. I was his parliamentary private secretary during that time, and I think that I can accurately express his views by saying that, if one is to be successful —not only on that occasion, but on others —in persuading the Treasury and Government colleagues to spend extra money, it is essential to ensure that the money is carefully targeted. This measure, which my hon. Friend the Minister is struggling to introduce, is a difficult one, but it is designed simply to ensure that we target that money. Any Government who really care about people with disabilities and who are really determined to make concrete and measured progress will always take such action.
One difference between the Government and Labour Members —although I have no doubt that they care about disabled people as much as I do —is on their claim that they can be so proud of their record in government. It took them four years to phase in a mobility allowance scheme, from which only 5,000 people gained benefit. I do not think that they can hold up their heads today and say that the measure is callous. It is necessary, and it has been thought through. Obviously it is a difficult measure, and no one would like to take it if it were not essential for good government.
The Labour party's suggestion that this debate is taking place in December only because the Government wish to smuggle it through the House is a disgraceful example of playing to the Gallery, and it cheapens its case. On a night when many hon. Members were prepared to debate the regulations, it was clear to us that Labour did not wish to
1256
do so. I do not blame it for that decision, because it was based on many good reasons. However, one cannot make agreements through the usual channels, and then claim the moral high ground by saying that the Government did not want such a debate. The reality is that the Labour party did not want to have the debate. That is why it is happening now. The measure is not welcome but necessary, and my hon. Friend the Minister deserves the support of the House.
6.39 pm
Mr. John Heppell: I will be brief, since every other hon. Member has tried to be.
The Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Gedling (Mr. Mitchell), should hang his head in shame for supporting the regulations. Later in my speech, I will give him some examples of how people —probably from his constituency —are suffering as a result of changes to the regulations.
Effectively, the regulations represent a cost-cutting exercise, and everything that the Under-Secretary says in trying to defend them is just not logical. They are based on false premises and supported by false information. The idea that people were spending the mobility component of their disability allowance on sweets and cigarettes is, quite honestly, insulting to disabled people, and as the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) has said, to suggest that is disgraceful.
The idea that there is no need to enhance the mobility of people who go into hospital is an illusion. Section 73 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 allows benefits to be withdrawn where people cannot benefit from enhanced mobility, but the majority of people who are in hospital still need that mobility component. That was made quite clear at the beginning of the year.
As a member of the all-party disablement group, I received letters from the Royal Association for Disability and Rehabilitation, Mencap, the National Association for Mental Health —MIND —the disablement information and advice line, the Royal National Institute for the Blind, the Disabled Drivers Association, the Association of Disabled Professionals, the Disability Alliance Educational and Research Association, the Spinal Injuries Association, Age Concern, Arthritis Care and just about every group that represents people with disabilities. They all said that the Government were working on a false premise. Not only did they object, but the Social Security Advisory Committee received almost 200 responses on the issue and told the Government that the proposals were based on false information and should not be implemented.
How is the change affecting people? The Government make it sound like some administrative change, but it actually means that 40,000 people have had their mobility component stopped or reduced. That is the Department's figure, not mine.
Mr. Andrew Mitchellindicated dissent.
Mr. Heppell: The Under-Secretary shakes his head. Let me tell him about somewhere much closer to home: Highbury hospital. As the Minister who has special responsibility for Nottingham, I am sure that he has visited it. There are 90 patients at that hospital, 76 per cent. of whom have had their benefits reduced due to the

1257
regulations. The hospital is divided into houses. Denby house, where there are six patients, used to hire a Nissan Prairie six days a week but no longer does so, so patients do not get to go to swimming lessons or for music therapy any more. They cannot go shopping either. Once a week they used to be able to go shopping for toiletries. Now they suffer the indignity of somebody else buying their toiletries for them.
Hucknall house is in a slightly better position because it used the mobility component to buy two vehicles. The problem is that, although the house has managed to maintain one of them, it cannot be used because the mobility assistants there and at Denby house had to be sacked due to a lack of money to pay them. The Under-Secretary will have to go back to his constituency and tell his constituents why he is responsible for such events happening in Nottinghamshire.
6.44 pm
Mr. Peter Luff: I detect a certain enthusiasm on the Opposition Benches to move quickly to a Division, so I shall be briefer than I had originally intended.
The regulations are about choice —not necessarily a particularly easy one, I acknowledge. It comes as no surprise to me to discover that new Labour is not prepared to make such difficult choices. I freely admit that I would rather that we did not have to make such a choice, but it is right to do so and I admire the straightforwardness of my hon. Friend the Minister's approach. The Government and the House often have to choose. I have supported many such difficult choices, and am delighted to do so again.
Hon. Members often have to choose in a way that upsets individual special groups. Sometimes there is a genuine disagreement about objectives, sometimes there is simply a disagreement about the means, and sometimes, as under the regulations order, we have to make difficult decisions about using public money —that means taxpayers' money —wisely. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) explained that very clearly.
We must acknowledge that the regulations reduce the incomes of some disabled people in hospital, but we should support them for four specific reasons. First, my hon. Friend the Minister made a powerful case for the logic of avoiding double provision. Every other benefit does that and I am not persuaded that we should make an exception for this particular aspect of the disability living allowance.
Secondly, the regulations will release resources for better use elsewhere in the system. We should always try to do that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West explained. Thirdly, the regulations are is sensitive to the particular needs of individual groups —the terminally ill in hospices, long-term cases and those with motability agreements for their wheelchairs or cars. Of course, they apply only to those whose stay in hospital exceeds four weeks.
Fourthly, and most important, the Government's general record on disability means that even if we have doubts about the regulations we should give them the benefit of the doubt. Spending on long-term sick and disabled people has quadrupled under the Government to £22 billion —virtually a quarter of the social security
1258
budget. That is a fine record of which the Government have every right to be proud. They should be proud of the success of the disability living allowance, which although it had teething problems when it was first introduced, was introduced rapidly —unlike its predecessor the mobility allowance, which was phased in over four years —to 60 times the number of previous claimants. To govern is to choose, and I believe that this choice is right.
6.46 pm
Dr. Norman A. Godman: Despite his promise, the Minister failed to answer my question concerning the exclusion of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland from consultation. I have been given an indication that he will answer the question.
In a letter that all the Scots Members of Parliament received, Dr. Dyer, the director of the Mental Welfare Commission for Scotland, said about the regulations:
"The Mental Welfare Commission has information from Lennox Castle hospital, for example, which has 166 residents previously in receipt of the high rates of mobility component. The total loss of income to these patients as a result of the changes will be £181,272 per annum. The Commission does not know if every penny of the money was previously spent exclusively for mobility purposes, but it does know that good use was made of DLA for mobility purposes in this hospital."
In another letter, Hugh Stewart, the depute director of the Scottish Society for the Mentally Handicapped, which does very fine work for people in Scotland who suffer from learning disabilities and other mental health problems, pointed out that the Scottish Office report —the Crosby report, which was published more than 10 years ago —encouraged hospitals to find ways of spending the benefits to improve the lives of their patients. In that sense, Scotland is different from England and Wales. The Department of Social Security typically failed to consult extensively throughout Scotland, and that is a matter for profound regret.
6.48 pm
Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If I do not answer all the points made by all hon. Members, I undertake to write to them after the debate to ensure that they have full answers.
The right hon. Member for Manchester, Wythenshawe (Mr. Morris), who has a very honourable mention on these occasions for the work that he has done for disabled people, should have recognised just how many strides the Government have made in helping the disabled people whom he has described over recent years. I make that point in all sincerity.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made several detailed points. I should like to pick up on some of them. I apologise to him if I do not pick up on them all. To some extent, those in long-stay hospitals whom he mentioned get protection at the lower rate. As he knows, 92 per cent. of long-stay patients have been in hospital for more than one year and get protection.
My right hon. Friend asked about the extent of consultation, as did the hon. Members for Rochdale (Ms Lynne) and for Greenock and Port Glasgow (Dr. Godman) —I apologise to him for not having answered his question in my opening remarks. My officials looked in detail at eight hospitals as part of

1259
the fact-finding effort, including three in Scotland. In addition, the Department of Health and officials in the territorial Departments were consulted by Department of Social Security officials. The evidence from the Social Security Advisory Committee was consistent with the facts found by officials. Only the interpretation differed. I reiterate the point that I made in my opening remarks —this answers much of what my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling said —that when mobility is part of care, recuperation and rehabilitation, it is the responsibility of the national health service.
The private agreements referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) and the excellent wheelchair scheme referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Malling are being kept under careful review by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. He has heard what has been said tonight. The House has our undertaking on that matter. The hon. Member for Rochdale made a point about balances. Balances were an issue at one time, but, as I made clear in my answer to her, we accept that they are no longer an issue. To some extent hospitals and patients have become adept at dealing with that problem.
In a characteristically well-informed speech on a subject on which he has immense expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Hughes) paid tribute to our
right hon. Friend the Member for Chelsea (Sir N. Scott). The whole House will agree with his comments.
The hon. Member for Nottingham, East (Mr. Heppell), who is a parliamentary neighbour of mine, if not quite an hon. Friend, said that this was a cost-cutting measure. I explained in some detail that that was not the case. Spending on the disability living allowance has increased enormously over the past five years. The hon. Gentleman will have noticed that those on the Opposition Front Bench were unwilling to give a commitment to replace the spending that we are discussing. If the Labour party is unwilling to make that commitment, what we have heard tonight is just political posturing and hot air.
I have visited Highbury hospital and have looked specifically at some of the cases that the hon. Member for Nottingham, East mentioned. On that visit, I heard nothing to undermine our conclusions. That is why I commend the regulations to the House.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 225, Noes 233.

Division No. 28]

[6.52 pm

AYES

Abbott, Ms Diane

Bell, Stuart

Ainger, Nick

Benn, Tony

Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

Bennett, Andrew F

Allen, Graham

Benton, Joe

Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)

Bermingham, Gerald

Armstrong, Ms Hilary

Berry, Roger

Ashton, Joseph

Blunkett, David

Austin-Walker, John

Boateng, Paul

Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

Bradley, Keith

Bames, Harry

Bray, Dr Jeremy

Barron, Kevin

Burden, Richard

Battle, John

Byers, Stephen

Bayley, Hugh

Callaghan, Jim

1260

Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)

Hutton, John

Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampst'd)

Campbell-Savours, D N

Jackson, Mrs Helen (Hillsborough)

Canavan, Dennis

Jamieson, David

Cann, Jamie

Jenkins, Brian D (SE Staffs)

Carlile, Alex (Montgomery)

Jones, Barry (Alyn & D'side)

Clapham, Michael

Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

Jones, Dr L (B'ham Selly Oak)

Clelland, David

Jones, Martyn (Clwyd SW)

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

Cohen, Harry

Jowell, Ms Tessa

Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

Kaufman, Gerald

Corbyn, Jeremy

Keen, Alan

Corston, Ms Jean

Kennedy, Charles (Ross C & S)

Cousins, Jim

Kennedy, Mrs Jane (Broadgreen)

Cox, Tom

Khabra, Piara S

Cummings, John

kilfoyle, Peter

Cunliffe, Lawrence

Lestor, Miss Joan (Eccles)

Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try SE)

Lewis, Terry

Dafis, Cynog

Litherland, Robert

Dalyell, Tam

Livingstone, Ken

Davies, Bryan (Oldham C)

Lloyd, Tony (Stretf'd)

Davies, Chris (Littleborough)

Llwyd, Elfyn

Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)

Loyden, Eddie

Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)

Lynne, Ms Liz

Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

McAllion, John

Denham, John

McKelvey, William

Dixon, Don

Mackinlay, Andrew

Dobson, Frank

McLeish, Henry

Dowd, Jim

Maclennan, Robert

Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

McNamara, Kevin

Eastham, Ken

MacShane, Denis

Etherington, Bill

McWilliam, John

Evans, John (St Helens N)

Madden, Max

Ewing, Mrs Margaret

Maddock, Mrs Diana

Faulds, Andrew

Mahon, Mrs Alice

Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

Mandelson, Peter

Flynn, Paul

Marek, Dr John

Foster, Derek

Marshall, David (Shettleston)

Foster, Don (Bath)

Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

Fraser, John

Martin, Michael J (Springbum)

Fyfe, Mrs Maria

Martlew, Eric

Gapes, Mike

Meacher, Michael

Garrett, John

Meale, Alan

George, Bruce

Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

Gerrard, Neil

Milbum, Alan

Gilbert, Dr John

Miller, Andrew

Godman, Dr Norman A

Morgan, Rhodri

Godsiff, Roger

Morley, Elliot

Golding, Mrs Llin

Morris, Alfred (Wy'nshawe)

Gordon, Ms Mildred

Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

Grant Bernie (Tottenham)

Morris, John (Aberavon)

Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

Mudie, George

Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

Mullin, Chris

Grocott, Bruce

Murphy, Paul

Gunnell, John

O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

Hain, Peter

O'Hara, Edward

Hall, Mike

Olner, Bill

Hanson, David

Orme, Stanley

Hardy, Peter

Pickthall, Colin

Harman, Ms Harriet

Pike, Peter L

Harvey, Nick

Pope, Greg

Hattersley, Roy

Powell, Sir Raymond (Ogmore)

Heppell, John

Prentice, Mrs B (Lewisham E)

Hill, Keith (Streatham)

Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

Hinchliffe, David

Prescott, John

Hodge, Ms Margaret

Primarolo, Ms Dawn

Hoey, Miss Kate

Purchase, Ken

Hoon, Geoffrey

Quin, Ms Joyce

Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

Randall, Stuart

Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

Raynsford, Nick

Hoyle, Doug

Randall, David

Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

Hughes, Robert (Ab'dn N)

Roche, Mrs Barbara

Hughes, Roy (Newport E)

Rogers, Allan

1261

Rooker, Jeff

Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)

Ross, William (E Lond'y)

Thumham, Peter

Rowlands, Ted

Timms, Stephen

Ruddock, Ms Joan

Tipping, Paddy

Salmond, Alex

Touhig, Don

Sedgemore, Brian

Turner, Dennis

Sheerman, Barry

Tyler, Paul

Sheldon, Robert

Vaz, Keith

Shore, Peter

Walker, Sir Harold

Short, Ms Clare

Wallace, James

Simpson, Alan

Walley, Ms Joan

Skinner, Dennis

Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)

Wareing, Robert N

Smith, Chris (Islington S)

Wicks, Malcolm

Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

Williams, Alan (Swansea W)

Snape, Peter

Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)

Soley, Clive

Winnick, David

Spearing, Nigel

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Spellar, John

Worthington, Tony

Steel, Sir David

Wright, Dr Tony

Steinberg, Gerry

Young, David (Bolton SE)

Stevenson, George

Stott, Roger

Tellers for the Ayes:

Sutcliffe, Gerry

Ms Angela Eagle and

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

Mr. Clive Betts.

NOES

Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

Cope, Sir John

Alexander, Richard

Couchman, James

Alison, Michael (Selby)

Cran, James

Allason, Rupert (Torbay)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Amess, David

Curry, David

Arbuthnot, James

Davis, David (Boothferry)

Amold, Jacques (Gravesham)

Day, Stephen

Ashby, David

Deva, Nirj Joseph

Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

Devlin, Tim

Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

Dicks, Terry

Batiste, Spencer

Dorrell, Stephen

Bellingham, Henry

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James

Beresford, Sir Paul

Dover, Den

Biffen, John

Dykes, Hugh

Body, Sir Richard

Emery, Sir Peter

Bonsor, Sir Nicholas

Evans, David (Welwyn Hatf'ld)

Booth, Hartley

Evans, Nigel (Ribble V)

Boswell, Tim

Evans, Roger (Monmouth)

Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)

Evennett, David

Bowden, Sir Andrew

Faber, David

Bowis, John

Fabricant, Michael

Boyson, Sir Rhodes

Fenner, Dame Peggy

Brandreth, Gyles

Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)

Brazier, Julian

Fishbum, Dudley

Brown, Michael (Brigg Cl'thorpes)

Forman, Nigel

Browning, Mrs Angela

Forth, Eric

Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)

Bums, Simon

Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)

Burt, Alistair

Freeman, Roger

Butler, Peter

French, Douglas

Butterfill, John

Fry, Sir Peter

Carlisle, John (Luton N)

Gate, Roger

Carrington, Matthew

Gallie, Phil

Carttiss, Michael

Gardiner, Sir George

Cash, William

Gamier, Edward

Channon, Paul

Gill, Christopher

Chapman, Sir Sydney

Goodlad, Alastair

Clappison, James

Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

Gorman, Mrs Teresa

Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

Grant, Sir Anthony (SW Cambs)

Coe, Sebastian

Greenway, Harry (Eating N)

Colvin, Michael

Greenway, John (Ryedale)

Congdon, David

Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N)

Conway, Derek

Grylls, Sir Michael

Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F)

Gummer, John

Coombs, Simon (Swindon)

Hague, William

1262

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Patnick, Sir Irvine

Hampson, Dr Keith

Patten, John

Hanley, Jeremy

Pawsey, James

Hannam, Sir John

Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

Hargreaves, Andrew

Porter, David

Haselhurst, Sir Alan

Portillo, Michael

Hawkins, Nick

Rathbone, Tim

Hawksley, Warren

Renton, Tim

Hayes, Jerry

Richards, Rod

Heald, Oliver

Riddick, Graham

Heathcoat-Amory, David

Rifkind, Malcolm

Hendry, Charles

Robathan, Andrew

Heseltine, Michael

Roberts, Sir Wyn

Hicks, Sir Robert

Robinson, Mark (Somerton)

Higgins, Sir Terence

Roe, Mrs Marion

Horam, John

Rowe, Andrew

Howell, Sir Ralph (N Norfolk)

Rumbold, Dame Angela

Hughes, Robert G (Harrow W)

Sackville, Tom

Hunt, Sir John (Ravensb'ne)

Sainsbury, Sir Timothy

Hunter, Andrew

Shaw, David (Dover)

Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

Shephard, Mrs Gillian

Jessel, Toby

Shepherd, Sir Colin (Heref'd)

Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

Shersby, Sir Michael

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Sims, Sir Roger

Jones, Robert B (W Herts)

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Jopling, Michael

Soames, Nicholas

Key, Robert

Speed, Sir Keith

King, Tom

Spencer, Sir Derek

Kirkhope, Timothy

Spicer, Sir Jim (W Dorset)

Knapman, Roger

Spicer, Sir Michael (S Worcs)

Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)

Spink, Dr Robert

Kynoch, George

Spring, Richard

Lait, Mrs Jacqui

Sproat, lain

Lamont, Norman

Stanley, Sir John

Lang, Ian

Steen, Anthony

Lawrence, Sir Ivan

Stephen, Michael

Legg, Barry

Stem, Michael

Leigh, Edward

Stewart, Allan

Lennox-Boyd, Sir Mark

Streeter, Gary

Lester, Sir Jim (Broxtowe)

Sumberg, David

Lidington, David

Sweeney, Walter

Lilley, Peter

Sykes, John

Lloyd, Sir Peter (Fareham)

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Lord, Michael

Taylor, Sir Teddy

Luff, Peter

Temple-Morris, Peter

Lyell, Sir Nicholas

Thomason, Roy

MacGregor, John

Thompson, Sir Donald (Calder V)

MacKay, Andrew

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Maclean, David

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

McLoughlin, Patrick

Trend, Michael

McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Madel, Sir David

Viggers, Peter

Major, John

Waldegrave, William

Malone, Gerald

Walden, George

Mans, Keith

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Marlow, Tony

Waller, Gary

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Marshall, Sir Michael (Arundel)

Waterson, Nigel

Martin, David (Portsmouth S)

Watts, John

Merchant, Piers

Whitney, Ray

Mills, lain

Whittingdale, John

Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Moate, Sir Roger

Willetts, David

Montgomery, Sir Fergus

Wilshire, David

Nelson, Anthony

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Neubert, Sir Michael

Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesf'ld)

Newton, Tony

Wolfson, Mark

Nicholls, Patrick

Yeo, Tim

Nicholson, David (Taunton)

Young, Sir George

Norris, Steve

Oppenheim, Phillip

Tellers for the Noes:

Ottaway, Richard

Mr. Bowen Wells and

Page, Richard

Mr. Timothy Wood.

Question accordingly negatived.

Fees and Charges
7.5 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Tom Sackville): I beg to move,
That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Fees (No. 1) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th November, he approved.
Under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, there is a system by which the users—those involved with animal procedures, who are mainly holders of personal licences—pay a licence fee that is altered from time to time by Parliament. It has always been agreed that the income generated is expected to meet the full costs of administering the Act, including the licensing system, the Home Office inspectorate, the Animal Procedures Committee and Home Office grants to sponsor research into alternatives. Those costs have reduced, but amount to some £2.3 million per annum.
The fees have been set according to the expected level of income. However, recently, because of a reduction in the number of personal licences—some 3,000 fewer are being issued than originally expected—there has been a deficit in the income. The order is designed to make up that deficit, and the Home Office will ask users to pay a one-off fee to make it up. The personal licence fee will go up from £110 to £135 and, under the order, a one-off fee of £89 will be levied. That will close the deficit and put the system back in financial balance. I therefore commend the order to the House.
7.7 pm
Mr. Elliot Morley: I listened carefully to the Minister's presentation. It was more interesting for what was not in it than what was. The Minister told us that the order will make up the deficit in relation to the fees fixed by the Home Secretary under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. I understand why he is doing that. I also agree that such fees should cover the full costs of inspection and administration, but the Minister did not deal with several points.
First, how did the deficit arise? Secondly, is the current level of fees, even with the increase, realistic in relation to the full cost of providing the services?
Mr. Sackville: I explained that there has been a shortfall in the number of personal licences. There are some 3,000 fewer personal licences than was originally estimated and that has led to the deficit that we seek to make up through the order.
Mr. Morley: The Minister did say that, and I accept that there is a shortfall of 3,000, but surely any fee structure should contain an element of flexibility and be connected to the number of personal licences and, therefore, relate to the number of people who are carrying out experiments. I suspect that the shortfall may not mean that fewer experiments are being carried out; simply that fewer people are involved in them. Perhaps the Minister
1264
will tell us whether people may be using the procedures to reduce charges by cutting down on the number of personal licences.
Mr. Tony Banks rose—
Mr. Morley: Does my hon. Friend want to say something?
Mr. Banks: I had hoped that the Minister would give us more of an introduction, and I thought that he had indicated that he would give way to me before he finished.
Mr. Sackville rose—
Mr. Banks: I am sorry, but I cannot give way while I am making an intervention. Instead, I shall ask my Front-Bench colleague a question. The Minister said that there was a 3,000 shortfall—whatever that may mean—but how many licences are there? That is the question that I wanted to ask the Minister. We know that there are now 3,000 fewer licences, but what is the total?
Mr. Morley: That is an important question, which we must come back to, because it is relevant to the argument. The Minister may like to answer it when he responds to the debate.
My hon. Friend's question leads me to what I was about to say. If there is a shortfall in income because of the reduction in the number of licences, is there not a way of restructuring and improving the way in which fees are charged under the Act? I mean a restructuring designed to encourage changes in the use of animals, especially the use of non-animal alternatives and more humane procedures.
One of the purposes of the fee is to fund research and development into non-animal alternatives, which we welcome. The Minister can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that the Government put only about £250,000 into research into other methods—a modest sum to spend on the serious issue of switching away from the use of animals.
One way of boosting the money that goes into research into other methods would be to have a more realistic licence fee and to restructure the system. I accept what the Minister said about the 3,000 shortfall, but I went to the Library and looked back to the last time the licence fees were amended. If I am wrong, again I am open to correction by the Minister, but according to my research fees were last increased under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act (Fees) Order 1993.
The annual fee for scientific research establishments increased from £120 to £122—a £2 increase. If I am right, there has been no increase since 1993. Is it any wonder that there is a shortfall, when fees are put up by such a small margin? Personal licence fees, too, were last increased in 1993, from £108 to £110—also a £2 increase. The breeding and supplying establishments had their fees increased by the large sum of £8, to £553. I assume that there has been no increase since that date. If so, it is hardly surprising that a shortfall has arisen.
I do not think that those fees represent much of a burden on the pharmaceutical companies that pay them. I am sure that that level of increase was of little concern to them. The 1993 increase was unrealistic, and the fees

1265
have not been increased since then. I do not think that that was responsible behaviour in terms of ensuring that the licence income kept up with the kind of services required.
The Minister says that there are 3,000 fewer licences, but I do not believe that the decrease accounts for the whole shortfall—the increases were tiny, at £2 a licence, and there has been no increase since 1993.
Such licence fee increases contrast badly with the Government's treatment of other charges and fees—council tax, for example. My local council tax payers would be delighted if their council tax was increased by only £2. My local authority is North Lincolnshire, a new unitary authority set up in 1995, and the people there have had to suffer an increase of 28 per cent. in their council tax. Yet pharmaceutical companies, many of which are very profitable and successful, pay such small charges.
Then there is what the charges are used for. The Minister said that they pay for the Animal Procedures Committee, for inspections, and for encouraging other methods. Those are legitimate and worthy objectives, but we must look at the link between income from licence fees, the work of the Animal Procedures Committee, and the level of inspections and their effectiveness under the 1986 Act.
In a reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Michael), the Minister said that there were no plans to increase the funding of the Animal Procedures Committee from the current modest total of £253,000. He gave no information about any extra funding for the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods—the main centre that the Government have supported for the purpose of developing non-animal alternatives.
As the Minister is arguing in favour of an increase, it would not be unreasonable to ask him to tell us how much of it will go towards increasing funding for inspections, enforcement and the development of other options. He has not told us how much of the money will simply make up the shortfall that has arisen because of the paltry increases in 1993. It would be useful to know.
A classic example of the need to encourage a move away from unnecessary experiments is cosmetic testing. We could have a higher licence fee for institutions and companies involved in such work. Section 5(4) of the 1986 Act clearly states that animal suffering should not be outweighed by human benefit, so under the current legislation it is hard to justify cosmetic testing on animals.
There is great concern about the possibility that the agreed European Union deadline for ending cosmetic testing on animals may be extended. That is outside the scope of the debate, but I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that many people would be appalled if that deadline were extended, because promises have been made to end the practice within the European Union.
Charges within the fees could be structured so as to encourage change and the use of other options. The LD50 test is outdated and obsolete, yet in 1994—the most recent year for which I could find figures—116,493 such tests took place. The Minister is probably aware that that goes against section 5(5) of the 1986 Act, which says that there must be "adequate consideration" of other methods.
There is an alternative to the LD50 test. The fixed-dose procedure is accepted by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, and there is no reason
1266
why it should not replace the LD50 test. There is also some argument about the use of the Draize test, and whether others are available.
Where there are arguments against tests—arguments about their age and about the cruelty involved—and where other tests could be used, could the Minister not consider differential payments by the institutions and companies that use the older tests? When they apply for licences, they should pay a considerably higher fee for using those tests, which would encourage a move away from the less acceptable tests towards the more modern options.
In 1993 the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection—the BUAV—exposed the fact that rabbits were being used by Wickham laboratories for pyrogenicity tests. Non-animal alternatives for those tests were not only available but had been recommended by both the United Kingdom and the European Union regulatory bodies, yet the tests were still taking place.
We are talking not simply about promoting other methods, but about a failure of enforcement under the 1986 Act. There has been a failure of procedure. Differential fees could help not only to discourage older, crueller tests, but to finance stronger regulation and more frequent and better inspection.
Why not also consider the fees as a means of encouraging a reduction in the number of animals used in experiments? A higher charge for using more animals would be an inducement to institutions and companies to reduce the number of animals that they use. That is not a new principle. It is accepted by the Government to promote environmental taxes. The increase in fuel duty by 5 per cent. above the rate of inflation is aimed at encouraging people to economise on fuel. Differential rates of tax on lead-free petrol and low-sulphur diesel are intended to encourage people to switch to those fuels for environmental reasons.
It is not unreasonable to suggest differential fees for licences to encourage a move away from the use of animals, to promote other methods and eventually to eliminate entirely the use of animals. The extra fees would also help to enforce the workings of the 1986 Act.
We must accept that there have been failings in the 1986 Act. I welcome the fact that the Animal Procedures Committee is conducting a full review of the workings of the Act. The Labour party has called for that for some time. Investigations by groups such as Advocates for Animals and the BUAV have demonstrated failures—for example, rabbits being burnt and operated on without adequate anaesthetics, and the abuse and tormenting of animals in certain institutions.
It would be helpful if the Minister told us whether he would consider differential charges, and whether he would discuss the matter with the Animal Procedures Committee as part of its review. Extra funding could bring about a reduction in the almost 3 million animals used in experiments, and speed up progress towards ending the practice.
The principle of differential charging is established and accepted. It is clear that the shortfall in income is due partly to inadequate charging, going back to 1993. The order presents an opportunity to rectify the situation.
7.22 pm
Mr. Roger Gale: I shall not detain the House long. I know that many hon. Members have business outside the House. I owe an apology to Olivia

1267
Burge of Briary Church primary school, who expected me to be at her carol service tonight. I hope that she and her classmates will understand that I have business here and will recognise the need for some of us to discuss these matters.
I must declare an interest in two pharmaceutical companies. That has never hindered me from speaking on this subject, and I do not propose to allow it to do so tonight. Hon. Members who know me know that that is my position.
I have great sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley), and I hope to explain to my hon. Friend the Minister why. I was privileged to serve on the Committee on the 1986 Animals (Scientific Procedures) Bill, as it then was, which was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney (Mr. Mellor) with considerable courage.
It was widely considered at the time that the Bill was a significant step forward in animal welfare. Its achievements should be recognised, but it is now 10 years since the Act was passed. It is under review by the Animal Procedures Committee and I understand that Professor Brazier and her colleagues hope to report in full in early or mid-spring next year. We look forward to their recommendations, because science and public opinion have moved on since the Bill became an Act.
My view, which is shared by colleagues on both sides of the House, is that not enough progress has been made in those 10 years, especially in Europe. Many of us believe strongly that, if there is to be progress on the use of animals in medical and cosmetic experiments, that will be achieved properly only on a Europewide basis. In the United Kingdom we have made a little progress, with the outlawing of the import of wild-caught primates. Many of us think that that should be a Europewide ban and we object to the import into the European Union of primates of any kind.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): Order. Before the hon. Gentleman continues, I trust that this is a preliminary to a discussion of charges.
Mr. Gale: I am coming directly to the subject of fees and charges, Madam Deputy Speaker. As the hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said, much could be achieved if the fees were higher.
Mr. Tony Banks: Experimentation on primates should stop. We are told that they are no longer imported from the wild, although there are some infringements. Would it not be preferable to move away from the use of primates for experimental purposes?
Mr. Gale: I understand and respect the hon. Gentleman's position. He, I think, understands mine. I have never believed that one will solve a problem by moving it from A to B, which is why I am adamant that we must seek Europewide solutions; otherwise I fear that we shall end experiments in this country, only to find that they move, possibly to one of the southern European states, where animals will not be treated even as well as they are treated in laboratories in the UK.
1268
In principle, I agree with the hon. Gentleman. As part of a step-by-step approach, the step of banning the use of wild-caught animals in the UK was a sound one. I would like it extended Europewide. I should like Europe to stop importing primates for medical or scientific experiments as soon as possible. I should like alternatives to be introduced, as I know would the hon. Gentleman.
The European Union has copped out of the cosmetics argument. The EC passed a directive stating that the use of animals in cosmetic testing would be phased out as soon as there were validated alternatives. We saw a flurry of welcome activity and investment, especially by the cosmetic companies, to explore possible alternatives. When it became clear that the implementation of the directive was unlikely to be possible within the time—this relates directly to the fees argument and the work of the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods—and when it became clear that validated alternatives would not be available, the Commission ducked the issue. Implementation has been postponed indefinitely.
The investment that was generated by the incentive of the end date has gone. The money from the cosmetic companies has been withdrawn. The small research companies that were investigating alternatives—I have in mind a particular laboratory in Scotland—find that their work is no longer being funded.
That bring us to the fees, which are modest. I recall—as I believe you do, Madam Deputy Speaker—that, during the passage of the Bill, the provisions for fees and charges were made specifically to back up the work of the inspectorate and the APC and to invest in research into alternative methods. Ten years on, insufficient money is being spent.
Those of us who have contacts in the pharmaceutical industry know that those companies believe that many experiments are carried out unnecessarily, but international agreements require them to be done. The APC should address those issues, and would be more able to do so if it was better funded. I do not see why that should become a burden on the British taxpayer. The companies that have a real and honourable interest in this would be willing to pay more in fees and charges if they believed that that would obviate the need for the animals in their animal houses which, frankly, most of them do not want any more than we do.
In the past couple of years, the inspectorate has been reduced. My hon. Friend the Minister will say that it has not been reduced, and that the level was raised to cope with the introduction of the Act. Once the Act had taken effect, it was no longer necessary to have the additional manpower. With respect, my hon. Friend has always overlooked the fact that the scientific procedures in which pharmaceutical companies and others developing new household goods are engaged are infinitely more complex than they were. They require greater understanding and a higher, not a lower, level of inspection.
One of the bases of the inspectorate was recently moved from the home counties back to central London. The effect has been—not may be, but has been—to give the inspectorate greater travelling time. It spends more time on the road and less time in the laboratories. I believe that it was intention of the House, and of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Putney and those of us who worked on the Act originally, that the inspectorate

1269
should be able to do a thorough job. It should be made up not only of doctors, but of vets who are qualified to go into laboratories to examine animal husbandry and to challenge the issue of every licence, if necessary. Inspectors must ensure that animal life is not wasted in the way that many of us believe it currently is.
It is vital that the inspectorate is not weakened, but enhanced, and the companies themselves would welcome that. The House owes it to the spirit and the letter of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to impose a level of charges that allows the inspectorate and the APC to operate properly. I do not believe that the procedures of the House will allow my hon. Friend the Minister to announce a sudden increase, but I urge him to go back to the Home Office and look carefully at the figures to see whether it is possible, through a further increase in these fees and charges, to fund the work that all hon. Members want to see.
7.32 pm
Mr. Tony Banks: I have listened with great care to the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), who works closely with us, and leads us, in the all-party animal welfare group. We do not always agree—even on this matter—but he respects my views, and I his. I cannot extend that act of charity to the Minister tonight, and it makes nonsense of our procedures if he is not prepared to make a fist of the draft statutory instrument. There are a number of questions that I wanted to ask, and the Minister appears to be getting out from under as fast as he can. He does himself no great credit, and he has not enhanced the scrutiny powers of this place.
Mr. Sackville: The hon. Gentleman has an opportunity to ask his questions. I was proposing a narrow order about an increase in fees, which I thought I did admirably.
Mr. Banks: Self-commendation is no great thing in this place, which is full of people who think that they ought to have been Prime Minister. I suggest that the Minister adopt a more humble role in this place—otherwise his present role will be the only one he will ever have.
The Minister told us little about the draft statutory instrument. He said that there was a shortfall of 3,000 licences and that therefore there was a need to raise extra resources through the increased fees. But he did not tell us how many licences we gain fees from. That is important, as from that we can start to work out precisely the number of companies and groups involved in animal experimentation.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) that the proposed increases—from £110 to £135—are miserly and absurd, given the money made within the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries, and research generally. The idea that £135, and a one-off fee of £89, is reasonable is absurd. The Minister told us nothing about total income, or how much the shortfall was in pounds, shillings and pence. I hoped that he would address those matters, and I hope now that, belatedly, he will apply his mind to these points when he replies to this short debate.
I am caught in a position of some equivocation, as I do not agree with animal experimentations—period. I take an absolutist position on this, which I realise puts me in something of a minority in the House. However, I believe
1270
that we do not have the right to experiment on animals at all. Who are we to say that animals should suffer on our behalf? But if we are to do these experiments, the fees ought to be at such a level that people think carefully about whether they want to apply for a licence. In addition, increasing the fees could also produce some resources for the Home Office to enable it to police the licensing regime with a damn sight more efficiency and thoroughness than it does.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe said that the Act requires scientists to consider the use of alternatives, and the Home Office is there to study the difference between gain and pain in terms of experimentation. That can be done only if there are enough inspectors spending enough time thinking objectively and coolly about the matter. Funding is needed for more research projects in universities to look at these matters, but that cannot be done with the present miserly budget.
We have been told that the budget for looking at alternatives to animal experimentation is £253,000. Is that the real size of the budget, given the mega-millions that the industries that use these animals for experimentation are spending? Is that all we are spending? The Minister and the Home Office cannot be serious if this is the sort of money that they are talking about. If the fees are supposed to fund the inspectorate, it is not surprising that there are only 19 inspectors.
The inspectors' work load in 1994 included the assessment of 955 project licences, the monitoring of the work of 15,700 licensed applicants and the inspection of 328 research establishments in the United Kingdom. Is that the level of the problem with which they have to deal? Is that the scale of the work load? Are we seriously suggesting that we are taking inspection seriously, with just 19 inspectors? If we raise money to pay for the inspectors from the amounts we charge for licences, let us stick it on the licensees. If they want to experiment, let them pay for it. People like me do not want them to do it, but I am damned if I will let them do it when they know that they will not even be supervised within the terms of the 1986 Act.
All the good intentions that I hear will amount to nothing if we are unable adequately to police those pieces of legislation on which we insist in this place. Does the Home Office really care? Does the inspectorate really care? To what extent is the inspectorate hand in glove with the pharmaceutical industry in terms of experimentation? People may say that I am being unfair in making these allegations, but I feel that it is totally obscene for us to experiment on any animal. If we were to change to a more healthy life style, we might not have so many diseases. We might then not need to use animals in experiments to find ways of solving the problems that we have created ourselves.
I do not believe that we have the moral superiority to say that animals should suffer because of our ineptitude, stupidity and short-sightedness in living the unhealthy lives that we do. If we want to poison ourselves, let us do it, but we should not then kill animals to try to find an antidote. That may not be a popular view in the House, but I hold it strongly and I know that many people in this country hold it equally strongly.
If we must have experimentation and if we are to allow that obscenity to continue, let us at least police it properly. The Minister's inadequate introduction tonight has not

1271
convinced me that he genuinely wants a reduction in the number of experiments. I understand that there were about 2.8 million experiments in 1994.
We have heard about some of the pointless experiments, such as the LD50 and Draize tests, that are still carried out in the cosmetics industry, and my hon. Friend—he is my friend in this context—the Member for North Thanet told us about the failure of the European Union to agree a common position. I disagree with him in that respect, because we are here to set an example, rather than merely to go at the pace of the slowest movers in the European Union. We should set an example and argue from a position of strength.
I cannot vote tonight against the increase in charges, but I want to register my total detestation of and opposition to all animal experiments. If the Home Office and the Government were serious about reducing the number of experiments, properly funding research into the alternative of non-animal experimentation and ensuring that there were enough inspectors, they would know that the measly, derisory and pathetic increases that the Minister proposed are totally unacceptable.
7.41 pm
Mr. Paul Tyler: I have the greatest sympathy with all that has been said tonight, especially by the hon. Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale), the chairman of the all-party animal welfare group. His views will be widely shared by hon. Members of all parties.
The welfare of animals is extremely important, and we have a relatively good reputation and record in this country, but the last thing that we must allow ourselves to indulge in is complacency. I entirely endorse what has been said about the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986. As has been said, it is now 10 years old, and I understand that a radical review is being carried out. My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I endorse the need for that review. We must be extremely careful to ensure that the order is adequate to its task, because it will take some time to complete the review and to introduce consequent legislation. There is no room for complacency.
I spent this morning at the sheep and beef event at the Bath and West showground where, incidentally, I was given a copy of an excellent tape called "British Beef is Better by Far", sung by a group called the "Moo Cow Blues". I promised to mention that in the House this evening, and now that I have done so I need not mention it again.
We have a good reputation, but I am concerned that in waiting for the rest of Europe to move we may slow ourselves down. The current discussion on the use of animals for testing cosmetics is timely, as is this debate, because a decision may be taken at any moment to postpone any action until the end of the century.
We still do rather more tests than other countries in Europe. The latest figures which I have show that I per cent. of all tests on animals here are for cosmetics and toiletries, whereas the figure for the whole of Europe is 0.3 per cent., so we have no room for complacency.
Mr. Gale: The hon. Gentleman must take on board the fact that some countries claim that they do not use animals
1272
at all; sadly, they simply hide behind the cloak of having their dirty work done in other places, one of which is the United Kingdom.
Mr. Tyler: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, because that underlines my endorsement of his point that we must not take unilateral action and assume that the rest of Europe will follow. The argument that the number of experiments is so low that it can be discounted can be turned on its head: if such tests are so unessential, surely we should do everything we can to eliminate them altogether. One way of doing that is to introduce a fee that makes them uneconomic.
We thought that we were moving in that direction when the 1986 legislation was introduced, when the original fees were introduced and when we thought that a European moratorium was about to take effect. Sadly, that does not seem to have happened, and I hope that the Minister will tell us the attitude of Her Majesty's Government, as it is not good enough to hide behind the attitudes of other member states. We need to know what our Ministers are doing on this extremely important issue.
The 1995 report of the Animal Procedures Committee expressed concern that
"some licensees are still not aware of the terms imposed by their own licences."
That is an extraordinary situation and brings us specifically to the question of what the fees are used for. Hon. Members have referred to the number of inspectors. The figure for 1994 was only 19. Have more been appointed since then, or are there even fewer in 1996? They had to inspect 328 research establishments and assess 955 project licences. Have those numbers been reduced? Are the inspectors more effective? We need to know.
The Liberal Democrats, in our 1992 document "A Matter of Conscience", the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, the British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection and many others have referred to the inadequacy of the inspection procedures. In 1995, there were 19 detected infringements of licences, and only 11 were discovered by inspectors. That is an extraordinarily low rate. Either this is the best regulated part of our national life, or a great deal is going undiscovered. How many more infringements might be discovered if the inspectorate were more effective and could attend to the issues more comprehensively?
The amount of money that has been ring-fenced for research into alternatives to testing on animals has declined. The figure of £253,000 for 1995, which has been cited, has gone down in the current year to £242,000. The Animal Procedures Committee was banking on at least a modest increase to about £260,000. What will be the budget for 1997–98? We need to know, as that is what we are here for this evening. What is the point of discussing fees if we do not know how they will be used?
Will the Minister tell us in precise terms what the allocated budget will be, whether it will be ring-fenced and, especially, how much will be provided for the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods which has been set up in Italy? What will be the implications if implementation of the cosmetics directive is delayed? How will we be sure that in the next three years, up to the end of the century, there will still be an

1273
increase in the pressure on the institutions and companies involved to move in the right direction? Why should there not be a higher fee for the licences that we are discussing?
It would be helpful if the Minister could say precisely what revenue he expects to raise from personal licences. It is by no means clear from the briefing that we had before the debate, and certainly not from his incredibly cavalier introduction, that there will be an increase of the order that many in the House, let alone the country, would expect. The fees raised from the holders of certificates to run designated establishments should be directly ploughed back into the investigation of alternatives.
Madam Deputy Speaker, this is a short debate which does not permit us to range as widely as we would like, but with your particular interest, you will agree that many people outside the House do not believe that we have got the priorities right. As the hon. Member for North Thanet, who chairs the all-party animal welfare group, has said several times, it is important for us to reflect the public's growing unease. We must not become so complacent about the progress since the passage of the 1986 Act that we do not accept that major additional improvements are needed now that it is 10 years old. That is the least that the public expect of us. It is not adequate for the Government to say that we are waiting on everyone else in Europe, because if we wait that long, it will be many years too late.
7.50 pm
Mr. Iain Mills: I will be brief. There are alternatives in respect of costs and fees. I am sorry that FRAME, the Fund for the Replacement of Animals in Medical Experiments, has not yet been mentioned. I am a founder member of FRAME, which has been trying for many years to find alternatives, such as invertebrates or computer programmes, to the use of animals.
Mr. Morley: I did not mention FRAME because of the narrowness of the order. Government funding for alternatives has been through the European centre. We recognise that FRAME does excellent work. One argument for increased or differential charges is that the Government could direct more resources to FRAME.
Mr. Mills: I welcome the hon. Gentleman's remarks. If differential charges could help FRAME in its dedicated campaign to find alternatives, which I have supported for many years, I should be pleased.
Sometimes, the House does not completely understand the use of animals in cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and other experiments. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) knows all about it. I just wish that more of our colleagues were more concerned about organisations such as FRAME.
7.52 pm
Mr. Sackville: We are discussing the regulation of animal procedures. There is never much good news on this subject because it is highly unsatisfactory that we have to experiment on animals. The House knows that we cannot go too wide while discussing a fairly narrow order, but clearly there are reasons, such as medical research and public safety, why we use animals. No one likes it, but we are discussing the matter against the background of a
1274
gradual fall in the number of experiments or procedures: from 3.6 million in 1987, to 2.84 million in 1994, the last validated figure.
The European definition of cosmetics is fairly wide and includes not only what people call cosmetics—such as lipstick—but soap, shampoo, toothpaste, protective sun cream, wart removers and other skin care products. The figure for such experiments has fallen from 14,500 in 1987 to 3,520 in 1994, the last validated figure. We expect to publish a figure below 2,000 for 1995. There is at least a welcome fall in the number of procedures, especially those designated as cosmetic, which cause the most offence. A small number of those involve beauty products, but many involve other products.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe (Mr. Morley) asked several questions. He echoed the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) in asking about the exact deficit. It was expected for good reason that about 20,000 personal licences would be applied for and granted. In fact, the figure is 17,000. Those figures have led to an accumulated deficit over three years of nearly £1 million. It was to avoid a very large jump in one fell swoop, and I shall come to the reasons for that in a minute, that we decided to ask for an interim fee to make up the deficit and then go for a higher annual fee to be payable from April 1998.
The hon. Member for Glanford and Scunthorpe also asked why we should not have a different structure of fees to increase income. The image of large pharmaceutical companies and rich corporations paying all the fees is not entirely right. Many licences are held by people who work at universities. Some universities have several hundred personal licences. Jumps in fees not only involve the details of the balance sheet of profit and loss at Glaxo, but have academic ramifications.
Mr. Morley: I accept that some institutions are doing important work that affects people's health, but I emphasise the case for differential fees. There is no reason in principle why fees cannot take account of whether the institution or company involved is commercial. If the experimentation is for product development that is highly profitable, the fee could be adjusted accordingly.
Mr. Sackville: I take that point. Perhaps we should consider that. It was not in our original thinking when we made the arrangements. It has been suggested that those who do cosmetic testing should pay more, but the number of establishments involved with cosmetics is, I think, down to four. There will not be huge fee income from them, but I accept that there is an argument for saying that there are different sorts of users. Universities, which do not have money coming out of their ears, perhaps have a more deserving case than others.
ECVAN, the European Centre for the Validation of Alternative Methods, has been mentioned. It is funded not by member states but by the Commission. Perhaps that is something that we should consider. My hon. Friend the Member for North Thanet (Mr. Gale) touched on the fact that we operate in a European context. We are to some extent—although, as has been said, we must not rest on this—limited by what happens

1275
in Europe. If we drive such work abroad, it will be to countries, dare I say it, with less rigorous regulations, lower standards and perhaps less pressure from public opinion to keep up standards.
As the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) acknowledged, we set a good record in this country and a good example through the rigour of our regulations. There are problems with a European ban, and it is likely to be put off. It was Britain that proposed the ban on testing finished cosmetic products—we were probably a minority of one on that. Our country is more committed to animal welfare than others.
Mr. Gale: It would be appropriate to place it on record that we are also driving for changes through the intergovernmental conference. If we could pull that off, it would affect animal welfare right across Europe.
Mr. Sackville: That is an important point.
The Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals has said of the European cosmetics directive:
"Although a great deal of research into alternatives has been carried out, little progress towards actual replacement of animals has been achieved."
Although a great deal of work has been carried out, I regret that more money is not available for the research budget of the Animal Procedures Committee. I am afraid that it is likely to receive even less money next year, because all parts of the Home Office have been subject to funding reductions.
Mr. Mills: Can my hon. Friend be more specific about that?
Mr. Sackville: The figure available for next year will be £182,000, which is considerably less than the current budget. I regret that, but it must be set against the £20 million spent by commercial companies across Europe specifically on work on alternatives to animal experimentation. Although I should like the Animal Procedures Committee to have more to spend on sponsoring research projects, its work represents a small part of the whole, the vast proportion of which is sponsored by commercial sources.
Mr. Tyler: According to my quick calculation, the cut is equivalent to a reduction of between 15 per cent. and 20 per cent. in the budget. Is the Minister telling us that the rest of the Home Office budget is being slashed by that amount?
Mr. Sackville: I am afraid that significant parts of my Department's budget are being subjected to large funding reductions.
Mr. Tyler: Not 20 per cent., surely.
Mr. Sackville: Such cuts have been made. I have done my best to minimise the damage. It is not
1276
something of which I can say I am proud, but that cut must be considered against the spending reductions imposed on many Departments.
Mr. Tony Banks: Perhaps I can help the Minister with a constructive proposal. Would he be prepared to farm out those functions to some of the animal welfare organisations? We could certainly raise far more than the derisory £182,000. Why not hand over those functions to some of the organisations represented by many of us who are present? That would get the Minister off the hook, and we shall be able to proceed with the work.
Mr. Sackville: Projects on the replacement of animal experiments can be sponsored by any source, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's offer would be gratefully accepted.
The hon. Member for North Cornwall and others questioned the adequacy of the inspectorate. It is made up of one chief inspector, three supervisors and 15 inspectors. They make 2,000 visits a year, the vast proportion of which are unannounced, to just over 300 establishment licence holders. The inspectorate consists of highly qualified and highly committed people. I cannot go along with the suggestion of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West that they might be in league with the pharmaceutical industry or anyone else. They are respected in their profession. They maintain high standards judged against European ones, and we hope to keep it that way.
I should like to echo the tribute that my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mr. Mills) paid to FRAME. It has done sterling work in forming public opinion and lobbying for more work on alternatives to be done. It has made many people much more conscious of the need to try to find alternatives to animal experimentation. I noted his remarks about funding for it.
We shall not satisfy everyone on this, including the hon. Member for Newham, North-West, who believes that it should be possible to introduce a total ban. I am afraid that that European ban is likely to be put off because of the lack of progress in finding alternatives, as the RSPCA reported. Our job is to try to lead by maintaining as high standards as we can. We must maintain our inspectorate and a system whereby we can regulate animal experimentation as best we can, although we regret the need for such work.
I believe that the increase in fees will provide us with the level of income necessary to maintain the inspectorate. I therefore commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act Fees (No. 1) Order 1996, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.

Hospital Services (North Durham)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coe.]
8.5 pm
Ms Hilary Armstrong: On 1 May, during a debate on the private finance initiative and the health service, I raised the problems encountered by north Durham hospitals, and the difficulties caused by the delay surrounding the private finance initiative. I am therefore grateful for the opportunity presented by the Adjournment to put before the House the increasing problems faced by people of the area as the crisis in hospital care mounts.
In May, I reported that five wards had just been closed and that services had been transferred from Shotley Bridge hospital to Dryburn hospital, without consultation, because of financial problems caused by an overspend last year coupled with the need to make a further £2 million raving in the current financial year.
The accident and emergency unit had already closed at Shotley Bridge and had been transferred to Dryburn. Over the summer an increasing number of problems were reported with accident and emergency services, to the extent that the trust acknowledged that people were having to wait for too long and that new procedures would have to be introduced.
In a report to the trust board in October it was stated:
"The main problem is, however, that many patients are having to wait for a considerable period of time following an assessment, for their treatment…In relation to the emergency admissions via the A and E Department, whilst the number of admissions has increased, the number of patients having to wait to be admitted to a ward in excess of 2 hours has increased considerably."
I am pleased that the trust has recognised that serious problem, and is seeking to tackle it, although I understand that no additional resources have yet been identified for the additional staff it knows will be necessary.
Those words hide many individual experiences that have come to light in the past few months. In their own way, each has been distressing, but they have also contributed to a general crisis in confidence in the ability of the accident and emergency service at Dryburn hospital to cope with the range of patients from the area.
There are also additional problems for constituents, particularly in my area, who now have to travel a minimum of 14 miles to the accident and emergency department. One constituent came to see me and recounted how he had been taken by ambulance to hospital having been mugged outside his home late at night. He was eventually attended to at the A and E unit, but then he had to make his own way home. That cost him about £15. I have been told that that is now the norm—that patients will be taken to the accident and emergency unit, but will then have to find their own way home. None of us had worked that out in the early stages of the debate on the transfer.
There has also been an increase in the number of cancelled operations—again, that has been acknowledged by the trust. I wrote to the trust in July, following receipt of a letter from Mrs. Eccleston of Shotley Bridge. Her father was admitted to Dryburn hospital on 25 June. He was not allowed to eat and was prepared for theatre on Thursday 27 June, but his operation was cancelled and she was asked to take him home. He was readmitted the following Monday.
1278
He was allowed no food and was prepared for the operation on Tuesday 2 July, but his operation was cancelled again. Mrs. Eccleston wrote:
"I feel the services which the North Durham Trust provide are becoming somewhat of a joke, and patients are suffering, no matter what quality measuring the trust claim to provide. I feel that two admissions, five days in hospital—on fluids only and two doses of Pecolax—a very severe acting laxative—on an 80-year-old man—and then to have the operation cancelled twice is no longer tolerable."
The story does not stop there. I and my colleagues—I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice) here—were informed in September that the business case for the new district general hospital had been refused by the health authority because it was too expensive. Having initially been promised that the private finance initiative route would bring real savings, which could then be used to develop community services in the Shotley Bridge and Chester-le-Street areas, including the development of new community hospitals, we were appalled to hear that the planned new hospital was to cost more in year-on-year revenue costs than the two hospitals continuing would have cost. I believe that the health authority was right to say that that was unacceptable and that a scheme which was, at least, revenue neutral—that is, one that would not cost any more than the two existing hospitals—would have to be prepared, so it was back to the drawing board.
We were also told that the trust had put it to the health authority that to make necessary savings because of current budget deficits the trust wanted to proceed with the further rationalisation of services from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn. Again, the health authority rightly said that it would not sanction further rationalisation until it was satisfied that the physical capacity of Dryburn was adequate to take the new services and the additional patients. My constituents are horrified at the suggestion that the transfer of services should go ahead with no guarantee of a new hospital and without necessary improvements to Dryburn having been approved or carried out.
It is no exaggeration to say that there is now a crisis. Dryburn hospital is not ready to take more patients or to be responsible for more specialties. There are bed shortages now, as well as inadequate theatres. This week, we have been sent a letter by the consultant staff committee—I know that the Secretary of State was also sent a copy of the letter, so I am sure that the Minister has seen it. The letter outlines the consultants' growing concern. The consultants support the interim rationalisation of services from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn, but they are doing so because the quality of service is deteriorating and they feel that they cannot wait for a guarantee of the new district general hospital.
The consultants identify two key areas of capital investment: in coronary care and intensive care and in creating extra operating theatres. Dr. Robson, who is chair of the consultants committee, says that those two projects are an absolute requirement before the move can take place. He adds that the trust's financial position is such that it could not hope to fund such developments itself. He writes:
"Consultants are now concerned … with simple, critical issues of patient care."
He goes on to say:
"Colleagues feel that already they are unable, because of bed and theatre limitations, to offer the quality and quantity of service which is desirable."

1279
Whichever way one looks at this matter, it is a crisis. The PFI case is having to be rejigged—the new case is with the health authority, but has not been agreed, so the Government have not yet seen it. The financial position is driving a hasty rationalisation without adequate facilities and the public feel that they are the last to be considered. Their confidence is being shaken again and again. We are facing the worst of all worlds: there is to be no new district general hospital, but the services are to go from Shotley Bridge. The whole saga is one of unfulfilled expectations and broken promises.
I am not here to condemn any individual or to lay blame, but the Government have to accept responsibility, both for the often chaotic way in which the changes in the health service have been approached and for the way in which the private finance initiative has been pursued. There is no time left for any procrastination.
Mr. Giles Radice: I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining this Adjournment debate—she is using the opportunity to debate this issue with her customary skill. I want to add my voice to her assertion that there is a crisis of confidence in hospital provision in north Durham. We want to hear from the Minister some reassurance that there will be the leadership necessary to get us out of this crisis. It is a crisis of confidence, not only for those who work in the hospitals, but for patients and for our constituents.
Ms Armstrong: I could not agree more. Indeed, I was about to say that someone has to get hold of this sorry affair and make sure that the people of north Durham get some reassurance. Those people are covered by my constituency, by my hon. Friend's constituency and by the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mr. Steinberg), who is unfortunately unable to be here this evening, but who has been supportive of efforts to ensure that something is done.
Reassurance will not come merely with warm words. The Minister must demonstrate today, first, that the Government recognise the crisis facing the people of north Durham in terms of hospital care and, secondly, that he is prepared to take action. The future of the new district general hospital does not feel secure. I want a commitment from the Minister tonight that the Government still intend to ensure that the PFI for the new district general hospital will go ahead.
Reading the Red Book for last week's Budget, I was concerned to learn that it allows for only half the projects currently being pursued in the health service to proceed over the next three years. That suggests that the Government will allow some to fall by the wayside and that a proposal that is not picked up by the market may not become reality.
That will not do. A new district general hospital for north Durham must not be left to the vagaries of the market. Surely the Government must have projects that they are not prepared to allow to fail. We seek from the Minister an assurance that they are not prepared to see a new district general hospital on the Dryburn site fall by the wayside because the contract is not right or because they cannot reach a private finance initiative agreement at this stage.
1280
What will the Government do to ensure that the necessary developments outlined in the letter from Dr. Robson take place? Before more services are moved from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn, we need to be sure that Dryburn is capable of receiving those services, delivering them effectively and caring properly for patients who will go there.
What will the Government do to ensure that there is an opportunity for the development of the community hospitals at Chester-le-Street and at Shotley Bridge? Dr. Levick, general practitioner in Consett, has done some excellent work for Shotley Bridge. Following wide consultation, he put together an excellent proposal for a community hospital which, if it is able to proceed, will become a model of its kind for the next 20 years. I seek reassurances that the Government understand the need for that facility and are determined to ensure that it will come into being.
We raise the issues in the House because of the real anxieties of our constituents. Recrimination does not take us forward, and we need to go forward. I cannot impress on the Minister too strongly the need for urgency. People in our area should have a health service that they can rely on and have confidence in. I am sorry to say that that confidence is ebbing away. It is our responsibility, in the positions that we hold as representatives of the people, to be the guardians of the health service.
I believe that the Government have let down the people of north Durham. Our constituents deserve better and I hope to hear from the Minister tonight that they will get better.
8.21 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Horam): I acknowledge the persistence of the hon. Member for North-West Durham (Ms Armstrong) on this issue, and her grave concern about the provision of hospital facilities in her part of Durham. I also acknowledge the concern of the hon. Member for North Durham (Mr. Radice), who intervened in her speech.
May I first say something about the accident and emergency service and relate some of the history of this matter? In March 1995, Ministers approved the closure of the accident and emergency department of Shotley Bridge hospital, where about seven of every 10 patients were treated for purely minor injuries, and approved its replacement by a nurse-led minor injuries unit.
That followed more general public consultation on the proposed reconfiguration of services between Shotley Bridge and Durham. The A and E department dealt with 18,000 attendances each year, well below the threshold recommended by the British Association for Accident and Emergency Medicine. That agreement followed more general public consultation covering proposed reconfiguration of services between the two hospitals.
All serious cases are now redirected to North Durham trust's main A and E facility at Dryburn hospital. However, in conjunction with the changes, North Durham trust did the following things. It appointed an additional consultant to the A and E department at Dryburn; upgraded the A and E department at Dryburn at a cost of £1.25 million, to provide increased facilities such as resuscitation bays; and installed a high-technology communications system—telematics—to link the two hospitals at Shotley Bridge and Dryburn.

1281
The hon. Member for North-West Durham will concede that ambulance services have responded well. There are now paramedics on every emergency ambulance in the Consett area, and a high-dependency paramedic unit is stationed in Consett. It is equipped to allow paramedics to fax ahead vital information to Dryburn hospital.
The trust also issued leaflets explaining those changes, to help people understand them and to help the Shotley Bridge minor injuries unit to receive cases that it would be appropriate to treat there.
Ms Armstrong: I did not want to intervene, but it would be exaggerating to say that Members of Parliament feel that the ambulance service is doing everything well. There have been several hiccups. Although we want to demonstrate our confidence that the Durham ambulance service will in the long run get it right, we have not been altogether satisfied. We have had to deal with some very difficult issues in the past few months.
Mr. Horam: I take the point that some cases may have been less than satisfactory, but I am describing the new arrangements that have been made, and I believe that, in general, the performance of the ambulance service has been very good.
I recognise also that recently there has been concern in Durham because, as the hon. Lady said, some non-urgent patients have had to wait longer than usual for treatment at the A and E department. The North Durham acute trust has recognised that, as she said, and has acted speedily. In any case, it had always planned to review the A and E changes after six months.
The trust set up an internal review of its A and E department, and it will act quickly on many of the recommendations from the action plan produced by the review team. These proposals include: improvements in staffing of the A and E reception, so that nurses can use their time more productively; the appointment of a senior nurse to act as a nursing leader for the A and E department; and improved nurse staffing levels.
Contrary to what the hon. Member for North-West Durham said, the trust has allocated extra funding to cover the cost of those improvements until the end of March. It is also implementing a wide range of measures to improve communications with patients and prevent delays for patients awaiting admission.
The trust's chief executive recently emphasised that those improvements were being made. Last week he said:
"Despite the fact that the A and E department it treating an increasing number of patients, the overall quality of medical care provided is extremely high. It is important to remember that all emergency cases have always been dealt with immediately and this will continue to happen".
So we should keep in mind the fact that patients do receive high-quality care in the A and E department of Dryburn hospital. The minor injuries unit at Shotley Bridge hospital is still capable of treating the vast majority of cases that previously went to the former A and E department there. Moreover, the new enhanced service represents a safer alternative for some seriously ill patients.
The hon. Member for North?West Durham mentioned the future role of Shotley Bridge hospital. I understand her worry about that. I understand the anxiety of local
1282
residents. As she knows, the Shotley Bridge working party was set up in 1995 partly in response to local concerns about the proposed new role for Shotley Bridge hospital. She is familiar with the history of the development of Shotley Bridge hospital, and I believe that the way in which it is developing has been perceived as very progressive by local opinion.
I am pleased to note that the leader of Derwentside district council, Alex Watson, is a non-executive director of Community Health Care: North Durham NHS trust—the trust that is playing a leading role in the development of Shotley Bridge hospital. His concern and knowledge will be valuable in that context.
I shall now discuss the matters of concern.
Mr. Radice: I understand why the Minister would not want to mention it tonight, but will he ask his Department to inquire how the plans for a new community hospital in Chester-le-Street are developing? Perhaps the Minister would write and give me a progress report.
Mr. Horam: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance and I will write to him. having investigated the state of play on the Chester-le-Street community hospital.
At the end of July, the hon. Members for North Durham and for North-West Durham visited me to discuss the important and innovative scheme for Dryburn. The hon. Lady then vigorously explained the need to update the facilities and I know that there is considerable local support for the scheme.
It is fair to say that the hon. Lady emphasised her enthusiasm for the proposals going ahead at Shotley Bridge, transforming it into a community-style hospital that would work in parallel with the Dryburn scheme. I can well understand her frustration and her wish that a new hospital be developed at Durham. I too would like—and indeed expect—progress to be made, but it is necessary for the scheme to pass through a rigorous process to obtain an affordable, high-quality hospital, which is good value for money and provides excellent facilities. The project is worth about £65 million. The hurdles that it must surmount are not particularly unusual and are generally overcome. The PFI route for North Durham also offers the opportunity to construct new facilities in one phase rather than via a phased development. One of the advantages of the PFI system is that everything can be done at once. As the hon. Lady and the hon. Gentleman will be aware from their experiences in north Durham, hospitals constructed via the public route often involve one, two, or three phases which can disadvantage the local community.
The hon. Lady voiced her strong concerns about the future of the PFI scheme in Durham. I am assured that the trust and the County Durham health authority are working jointly on measures to bridge the "affordability gap". The next step will be for the trust to finalise the full business case for the project and ensure that it has health authority agreement. I give both hon. Members this assurance: I am personally involved with the case and I know that all the parties concerned locally—the trust, the health authority and the regional arm of the national health service executive—are working extremely hard on the project.
As Minister responsible for PFI schemes, I assure the hon. Lady that the project remains a high priority. It is one of the leading PFI schemes and it enjoys my full

1283
support and attention. Obviously I cannot guarantee its success, but it will not fail for want of trying. We are convinced of the need for a new hospital in Durham and we believe that we are on course to achieving that. There is no reason why it should not be accomplished within the timeframe that I mentioned. The project does not lack the necessary support and leadership, and I shall be dedicated to it while I remain the Minister responsible.
The hon. Lady said that the transfer from Shotley Bridge to Dryburn should not take place without adequate improvements to the hospital at Dryburn. In a sense, the PFI scheme and those improvements are linked. I also recognise the point made by Dr. Robson in his letter that the improvements are necessary on clinical grounds. They will go forward on clinical grounds, as the financial grounds are not strong. Clinical needs and patient care are the important factors driving the improvements at Dryburn. I recognise the hon. Lady's assertion that coronary care, intensive care and extra operating theatres are the three key issues around which the improvements revolve. I hope that I have reassured the hon. Lady that the scheme does not lack priority: it will go ahead if the parties who are currently working extremely hard continue to do so.
1284
Finally, I turn to the overall position of the health authority. The hon. Members will be aware from the letters that they have received in the past week or so that the health authority received an integrated allocation for next year of £295.7 million—which is a £6.4 million real cash increase and a 2.3 per cent. increase. They will know that Durham is an under-target health authority: its budget is below what it would receive normally. Therefore, it will continue to receive above-average increases in revenue, year on year, until it reaches the target level. At present it is about 1.6 per cent. below the target—which is not a lot—so it will benefit in future years.
We intend to try to raise all health authorities in the country to the correct revenue levels steadily, year on year. We cannot achieve our objective in one year, but we shall reach our target over time. The health authority is in a promising position as it will receive the revenue necessary to deal with some of the immediate problems facing the trust. For all those reasons—first, the commitment of the PFI scheme; and, secondly, the situation facing the health authority—the hon. Lady has reason to be optimistic.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-six minutes to Nine o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  US-UK Air Service Agreements
  US-UK Air Service Agreements
  Traffic Area Offices
  Traffic Area Offices
  National Road Transport System
  National Road Transport System
  Second Tamar Crossing
  Second Tamar Crossing
  MV Cap Afrique
  MV Cap Afrique
  Metrolink
  Metrolink
PRIME MINISTER
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Engagements
  Engagements
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land Management Schemes
  Land Management Schemes
  Directorate of Fisheries Research
  Directorate of Fisheries Research
  Intervention Board (Recruitment)
  Intervention Board (Recruitment)
  Butter
  Butter
  Live Animal Exports
  Live Animal Exports
  Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd.
  Hedley Lomas (Ireland) Ltd.
  MV Cap Afrique
  MV Cap Afrique
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
DEFENCE
  Animal Welfare (Unclassified Reports)
  Animal Welfare (Unclassified Reports)
  RAF St. Athan
  RAF St. Athan
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
  RAF Scampton
  RAF Scampton
  Stone of Destiny
  Stone of Destiny
  MV Cap Afrique
  MV Cap Afrique
  Contracts
  Contracts
NATIONAL HERITAGE
  Ministerial Visits
  Ministerial Visits
  Film Industry Finance
  Film Industry Finance
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
DUCHY OF LANCASTER
  Master of Business Administration Course
  Master of Business Administration Course
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Japanese Pupils (Visas)
  Japanese Pupils (Visas)
LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  Courts and Legal Services Act
  Courts and Legal Services Act
ENVIRONMENT
  River Thames (Nitrates)
  River Thames (Nitrates)
  City Pride Initiative
  City Pride Initiative
  City Challenge
  City Challenge
  Offshore Installations (Pollution)
  Offshore Installations (Pollution)
  Private Finance Initiative
  Private Finance Initiative
  Development Land Values (Taxation)
  Development Land Values (Taxation)
  Private Sector Housing Renewal
  Private Sector Housing Renewal
  National Forest
  National Forest
  Valuation Tribunal Service
  Valuation Tribunal Service
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Environmental Auditing
  Environmental Auditing
EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT
  National Vocational Qualifications
  National Vocational Qualifications
  Open University
  Open University
  Education Expenditure
  Education Expenditure
TREASURY
  Gross Domestic Product
  Gross Domestic Product
  Women
  Women
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Economic and Monetary Union
  Tax (Tobacco Products)
  Tax (Tobacco Products)
  Interest Rates
  Interest Rates
  Private Finance Initiative
  Private Finance Initiative
  Finance Bill
  Finance Bill
  EU Budget
  EU Budget
  Open-ended Investment Companies
  Open-ended Investment Companies
  Utility Prices
  Utility Prices
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Air Weapons
  Air Weapons
  Electronic Tagging
  Electronic Tagging
  Kent Chief Constable
  Kent Chief Constable
  City Centre Crime
  City Centre Crime
  North London (Policing)
  North London (Policing)
  European Immigration Policies
  European Immigration Policies
  Sex Offence Cases
  Sex Offence Cases
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Drug Seizures
  Drug Seizures
  Police and Local Authority Co-operation
  Police and Local Authority Co-operation
  Holocaust Denial
  Holocaust Denial
  Knives
  Knives
  Prisoners (Serving of Sentences)
  Prisoners (Serving of Sentences)
  Homeless People (Voting Rights)
  Homeless People (Voting Rights)
  Japanese Pupils (Visas)
  Japanese Pupils (Visas)
  Drunkenness (London)
  Drunkenness (London)
  Police (Administrative Burdens)
  Police (Administrative Burdens)
  Merseyside Police Authority
  Merseyside Police Authority
WALES
  National Health Service Trusts
  National Health Service Trusts
  School and College Inspections
  School and College Inspections
  Maindy Road Rail Depot, Cardiff
  Maindy Road Rail Depot, Cardiff
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Child Labour
  Child Labour
  Publicity
  Publicity
  EU Pressure Equipment Directive
  EU Pressure Equipment Directive
  Petro-coke
  Petro-coke
  Digital Television Services
  Digital Television Services
  Microsystem Research
  Microsystem Research
  Offshore Companies
  Offshore Companies
HEALTH
  NHS Trusts (Expenditure)
  NHS Trusts (Expenditure)
  Elderly Infirm People
  Elderly Infirm People
  Nerve Gas Attack (Tokyo)
  Nerve Gas Attack (Tokyo)
  Hospital Staff (Yorkshire)
  Hospital Staff (Yorkshire)
  Laryngectomies
  Laryngectomies
  Dental Fluorosis
  Dental Fluorosis
  Community Care Special Transitional Grant
  Community Care Special Transitional Grant
  Meningitis
  Meningitis
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Flooding (Newtownards)
  Flooding (Newtownards)
  Prosecutions (Costs)
  Prosecutions (Costs)
  Young Offenders
  Young Offenders
  Burglaries
  Burglaries
  Chinese Business Men (Attacks)
  Chinese Business Men (Attacks)
  Scheduled Offences
  Scheduled Offences
  Crime Statistics
  Crime Statistics
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes
  Sainsbury's Stores
  Sainsbury's Stores
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
  Royal Ulster Constabulary
SOCIAL SECURITY
  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Housing Benefit Fraud
  Regulations
  Regulations
  Benefits Agency (Wales)
  Benefits Agency (Wales)
  Incapacity Benefit
  Incapacity Benefit
  Special Hardship and Reduced Earnings Allowances
  Special Hardship and Reduced Earnings Allowances
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Benefits Agency Offices (Wales)
  Benefits Agency Offices (Wales)
  Child Support Agency
  Child Support Agency
  Income Support (Yorkshire)
  Income Support (Yorkshire)
  Pensioners (Income Support)
  Pensioners (Income Support)
  National Insurance Contributions
  National Insurance Contributions
SCOTLAND
  Recycling
  Recycling
  Air Passenger Duty
  Air Passenger Duty
  GP Fundholding
  GP Fundholding
  Cairn Gorm Funicular Railway
  Cairn Gorm Funicular Railway
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Cairngorms
  Cairngorms
  Bowel Cancer
  Bowel Cancer
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Food Poisoning
  Food Poisoning
  Air Passenger Duty (Orkney)
  Air Passenger Duty (Orkney)

Preamble
The House met at three of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Coventry.
Viscount Wimborne—Sat Viscount Wimborne—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his father.

Television Sponsorship: ITC Draft Code
Viscount Astor Viscount Astor asked Her Majesty's Government:
What progress has been made in the review of Independent Television Commission programme sponsorship and what interim decisions have been taken on the future of masthead programming on television.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of National Heritage (Lord Inglewood): My Lords, the Independent Television Commission's consultation on its draft of a revised code of programme sponsorship ended on 15th November. The consultation document proposes to allow masthead programming on cable, satellite and new digital services while retaining a ban on the public service channels. I understand that the commission hopes to introduce a final revised code early in the new year.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his reply but can he explain why the ITC has proposed that programme sponsorship should be encouraged on satellite and cable channels but banned on ITV Channel 4 and Channel 5? Is that not illogical and unfair competition, especially when programmers and publishers are increasingly coming together to make programmes?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I hasten to add that this is a draft document which relates to a code to be drawn up by the Independent Television Commission. I believe that the distinction that has been drawn by the ITC is based on the fact that the public service channels have certain positive programming requirements that are absent on the other licensed channels.
Lord Donoughue: My Lords, perhaps the Minister will help the House because the distinction is not clear at first sight. Is the Minister saying that the distinction arises because this activity is slightly disreputable and is not appropriate on public service broadcasting but is perfectly all right on satellite?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the point is not that this activity is inherently disreputable—far from it—but that the standards that are expected of, and the tone that is expected to be conveyed by, the public service channels
776
are different from those on the other licensed channels by virtue of the positive programming requirements that are placed upon them.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, is the Minister aware that programming sponsorship tends to condition programmes? Can he assure the House that there is sufficient understanding of this problem and that care will be taken to ensure that programmes do not become totally conditioned by sponsorship?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, has said, this is potentially an extremely difficult area. I emphasise that sponsorship of the kind that is being discussed must not involve the sponsor exercising any editorial or programming control over the programme in question. In addition, it cannot advertise that sponsor's products or promote them in any way.
The Viscount of Falkland: My Lords, I am not sure that I understand the noble Lord. Obviously, it is my fault. Is the Minister saying that this applies only to satellite, cable and digital services? If so, can one take it that when digital replaces analogue on terrestrial services there will be a relaxation of the restriction?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Viscount for seeking clarification in case what I have said is not clear. Currently, masthead programming is not permitted. The ITC's draft code, which is out for consultation, proposes that it should be permitted on the services that I have mentioned. When digital terrestrial services come into operation, simulcasts, that is, simultaneous identical transmissions of existing analogue public service broadcasters, will be at the core of such services. Those programmes will be public service broadcasts. It is open to those who broadcast the programmes to broadcast additional material which will require licensing by the ITC. That additional material, even if transmitted and broadcast by an existing public service broadcaster, may be sponsored by the masthead technique provided it does not fall into the category of the programmes that are being simulcast.
Viscount Astor: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for his very clear reply which I am sure all noble Lords have understood perfectly. Will my noble friend express to the ITC the view that there must not be a situation in which satellite and cable broadcasters suddenly find themselves with a distinct advantage over terrestrial ITV broadcasters in this country?
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, in response to my noble friend I think I can do no better than explain that I advised the ITC that this Question would be put and that that body might find it helpful to hear what your Lordships said.
Lord McNally: My Lords, is not the warning of the noble Lord, Lord Jenkins, apposite? Is this not yet another step in the influencing of programming by commercial interests? One already has the skilled art of

777
product placement not only on commercial television but on BBC television and in films, and the separation between commercial interests and programming is very important to the quality of television.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, the noble Lord is right. I should like to emphasise that product placement is not permitted under the sponsorship rules. The point the noble Lord makes is one that is widely recognised and in this country owes its origin to the European television without frontiers directive which specifically points out the essential requirement that editorial and programming control is separated from the sponsor.

Council Flat Owners: Financial Assistance
3.15 p.m.
Lord Dean of Beswick Lord Dean of Beswick asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to provide financial assistance to people who purchased the council houses or flats in which they lived and who now find themselves in financial difficulties as a result.
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government intend shortly to issue directions to social landlords which will enable them—and in certain cases require them—to reduce charges in some cases to those who are in particular difficulties with high service charges.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that I am talking about people who in good faith bought the council properties in which they were living? Is he further aware that the numbers are growing so much that we are talking in terms of thousands of elderly people who, in the main, purchased flats and are living in them. In some places a block of flats has been bought in that manner. The owners now find themselves faced with bills of between £10,000 and £15,000 for remedial treatment and repairs, and there is no possibility of selling those flats. They are trapped in them. Could not the Government think up some scheme to provide some financial help for the owners of those properties? If they do not, those properties may well be lost to this country's housing stock.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am sorry the noble Lord did not find my Answer as helpful as I thought he would think it was. Some people who have bought council houses, or flats in particular, find considerable difficulty with high service charges. I agree with him that there are certain people who are old and who find themselves in trouble. The local authorities can buy back those houses or flats, particularly if people are old and may become homeless. It may be cost-effective for them to do so. There is also an exchange sale scheme under which the Government give local authorities
778
concessions to encourage them to buy back houses or flats at the original right-
to-buy price, provided that they offer the people another property.
Lord Clark of Kempston: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that the generous discounts given to former council tenants who bought their own houses or flats mean that comparatively few of them are suffering from negative equity? Does he further agree that it would be wrong to single out one class of owner-occupier on whom to use taxpayers' money? Finally, does he agree that the Government's policy of selling council houses has been extremely successful in view of the fact that nearly 70 per cent. of the population are owner-occupiers?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for drawing your Lordships' attention to that matter. He is right that few people are caught by this. Of some 200,000 flat owners—those who have purchased their council flats—only 2 per cent. could not sell because the purchaser could not obtain a mortgage. We produce a booklet on the right to buy. That booklet warns tenants of the costs of buying, service charge costs and the possible difficulty in selling the flats. We warn that expert independent advice should be taken, and tenants should think carefully before they buy. With regard to my noble friend's remarks about people being house owners, he is again of course right. In fact, 2.1 million council tenants have bought their properties since 1979 and become house owners. That is a creditable figure.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, I welcome some of the measures that the Minister has announced. Does he agree, however, that the proper way to approach this problem, which is a serious one, would be to introduce a scheme for mortgages to rents generally across the board rather than the scheme of rents for mortgages that the Government had in place?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall need to work out exactly what the noble Lord is saying. Some people have their mental processes work rather slower than the noble Lord's. I shall consider what he is saying about mortgages to rents and rents to mortgages. People who decide to purchase their house take a risk—of course they do. It happens with everyone. In the council sector they are given substantial concessions. The negative equity problem to which my noble friend referred does not affect them nearly so much, particularly now, because house prices are increasing. Negative equity at the moment is about one-fifth of what it was in 1992.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of the facts in the noble Lord's question were wrong? Is he further aware that just after the right to buy was established several years ago, a substantial number of tenants bought industrially built houses which showed serious defects after a short time and that

779
the Government introduced substantial grants for them to be repaired? Will the Minister consider extending that scheme to these people?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I have explained to your Lordships that the exchange sales scheme enables local authorities to buy back houses where there is a difficulty. The fact is that anyone who purchases a house takes a risk and has to have professional advice. I realise that some people fall into difficulties not necessarily of their own making and we have taken steps to help.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, we are grateful that the Government are recognising the problems experienced by some people who have bought their houses or flats, and that they are prepared to make financial provision to help them. However, there is a difference between the situation of those people who have bought their houses or flats and who then experience unforeseen problems and the situation in Westminster where the Conservative council mis-sold its flats with the result that the owners have faced enormous bills. Presumably the government scheme will apply to them, too. However, have the Government any intention of surcharging the councillors responsible for mis-selling their council's property?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, that question is wide of the Question on the Order Paper and does not require an answer, other than the fact that I am not aware that it is so.
I say to the noble Lords, Lord Monkswell and Lord Dean of Beswick, that a survey carried out in 1994 of the people who had bought council houses showed that 97 per cent. of those who purchased under the right-to-buy scheme considered that they had good value for money; 86 per cent. of council flat owners considered that they had good value for money; only 8 per cent. of flat owners were more than one year in arrears with their service charges; and only 12 per cent. of all sales under the right-to-buy scheme are flats. Therefore, a considerable number of people who have purchased flats or houses are satisfied with what they have done.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is there any incentive for local authorities to buy houses or flats at less than their market value and to relet them to the tenants at rents which do not cover the interest or management charges? Will the Minister say how many local authorities have taken advantage of the powers that he says they possess in this regard?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, not many councils have taken advantage of the exchange sales scheme, although it is there for their benefit. With regard to buying back houses which are owned by people who have got into difficulties, if people are old and may
780
become homeless it may well be cost effective for the local authority to do so; otherwise, it would have to find alternative accommodation for such people.
Lord Williams of Elvel: My Lords, the Minister said that not many local authorities have taken advantage of the scheme. Can he give a figure indicating how many is not many?
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I shall have to scratch around in the books to find the answer. I do not have it at the moment, but I shall see what it is and tell the noble Lord.

Office of Public Service
3.24 p.m.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil Lord Peyton of Yeovil asked Her Majesty's Government:
What are the functions of the Office of Public Service and whether they are satisfied that these functions do not encroach upon those of other government departments.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, the Office of Public Service carries out functions designed to promote and support good government, the provision of efficient and effective public service and policies which improve UK competitiveness. Details of these functions are set out in the department's last annual report (Command Paper 3220). Co-ordination arrangements exist to ensure that they complement and support those of other government departments.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that Answer. I wonder how much other government departments have welcomed this spur to greater efficiency and also whether the help proffered to them does not seem more like a hard grip on their windpipes. Will my noble friend do what she can to ensure that the new department keeps Parliament informed of its plans and gives Parliament an opportunity to discuss them? The handling of the RAS and the plans in so far as they are understood for the Whitehall estate have generated a few breezes of anxiety.
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I am surprised that my noble friend has finished. He is stating his opinion, but he would not expect me to share it. However, I have noted his concerns and I shall draw them to the attention of the First Secretary of State, the Deputy Prime Minister.
As regards the RAS and parliamentary accountability, both Houses had the opportunity to debate the Government's proposal to privatise it and the

781
Government responded to the detailed report of the Public Service Committee of this House on the sale, accepting all but one of its detailed recommendations.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Minister will recall that accepting all but one recommendation means accepting all the recommendations except the really important one. Does she recall that in May this year Sir Peter Kemp, the former Permanent Secretary of the Office of Public Service, said that Whitehall's existing structure reflects a view of the world that is usually anachronistic, distorted and sometimes just plain wrong. Is that the Government's view?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, no. I believe that a pretty good bite was had at the cherry on 7th November when the whole matter was discussed in detail. My noble friend Lord Howe said that the Select Committee did not include the wider question as to whether privatisation should proceed. That was the one recommendation with which the Government did not agree. He also said that the recommendations of your Lordships made for a better contract and arrangements with the new owners in the end and he was grateful to this House.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, does my noble friend agree with me that the most useful thing that the Office of Public Service could do would be to direct the scrutiny of Mr. Fisher and the deregulation taskforce to its own operations; for instance, to deal with the novel idea in the OPS that it is going to tackle the burden of paperwork in the public sector, with further scrutinies to be launched? That is a very interesting point of view. Is it my noble friend's view that it may conceivably be part of the intention of the Deputy Prime Minister to change the culture of the Civil Service; but changing that culture seems to involve more paper, not less, except that the paper is OPS-generated and perhaps for that reason is respectable?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, this Government are committed to a permanent, politically impartial Civil Service, recruited through the principles of fair and open competition and selection on merit. The Government introduced the new Civil Service code and are committed to uphold the values of integrity, impartiality and objectivity across the Civil Service, which my noble friend Lady Park will know a great deal about.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I should be grateful if my noble friend could forecast the likelihood of that office achieving its own target of becoming a model of good management practice by the end of this year?
Baroness Trumpington: My Lords, I do not forecast anything, but I shall pass on those remarks, as I said I would my noble friend's other remarks, to the department

National Heritage Bill [H.L.]
3.30 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Financial assistance from the National Heritage Memorial Fund]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line ID, after ("architectural.") insert ("engineering,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 1, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 4. When we discussed the Bill in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Howie, proposed a number of amendments, the main thrust of which was to add the word "engineering" to the various lists of heritage "interests" which appear throughout the Bill. The amendments attracted support from the noble Lord, Lord Monkswell, and my noble friend Lord Caldecote. My response was that the amendments added nothing of substance since the funding remit of the National Heritage Memorial Fund under the terms of the Bill will encompass objects of interest in relation to engineering history. I nonetheless recognised fully the noble Lord's firm conviction that engineering must be seen as an aspect of the heritage in its own right, rather than simply an element falling within architecture or science. I therefore agreed to look again at the case for making specific reference to engineering on the face of the Bill.
Having now done so, I have concluded that there are two lists of heritage "interests" set out in the National Heritage Act 1980, as amended by the Bill, where a specific reference to engineering might happily be included. These are the lists in new Section 3(1) and new Section 4(2) of the 1980 Act. My proposed amendments accordingly add the word "engineering" in those two places. The other lists of heritage "interests" in the legislation are rather narrower in scope and I do not think it would be helpful to add any further items in these cases for the reasons I explained at Committee stage.
I hope the House and in particular the noble Lords to whom I have just referred will agree that what I am now proposing represents a sensible way of dealing with the concerns expressed in Committee. I accordingly commend the amendments to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Inglewood, for his response to the arguments which I produced in Committee and for bringing forward these two amendments. Not only that, I am extremely grateful to him because last week he listed my house—admittedly only as Grade II; it was part of a bumper bundle of houses in the Hampstead garden suburb. But it is interesting that the notification of listing was accompanied by a number of papers, some of which actually defined what architectural interests meant in the eyes of his department. The definition reinforced the arguments which I have put forward; namely, that architectural interest did not include engineering interests.

783
I am grateful to the Minister for the step that he has taken; it is small hut welcome. However, at the risk of appearing churlish, although I do not wish to do so, I suggest that at the next stage of the Bill, he should take further steps. He said that the word "engineering" has been included in two places in the Bill. When we discussed the matter in Committee, I suggested that the word should be included in four places. He has excluded two of those and I wonder that that has been done.
In the schedule to the Bill at paragraph 1(3), new subsection (2)(a), where the Minister has made an amendment, it is followed by paragraph 1(3), new subsection (2)(b) and (c) where no amendment has been made. I support entirely the fact that the Minister has accepted my amendments where they relate to architectural and structural engineering. But engineering goes much further than that. Paragraphs (b) and (c) refer to any object which is of outstanding historic, artistic or scientific interest or any group of objects. "Objects" must include machinery. The Minister will explain if it does not include those things. If we go to the somewhat oddly named scientific museum, we find that a large part of what is on display there consists of engineering artefacts—machinery and things of that nature. A machine—whether it is a machine tool, a planing machine, a screw-making machine or something of that nature, of which there are many and which are part of our heritage—is an object under the terms of the Bill. If they are not, I shall stand corrected. But if those are objects they are of engineering interest and the word "engineering" should be include in paragraphs 1(3), new subsection (2)(b) and (c).
I asked the Minster to consider the point. If I am wrong, which has happened before, perhaps he will correct me.
I am very grateful to the Minister and, as I say, am anxious not to appear churlish. However, in Committee, I asked him why the word "structure" should not be added on page 2 line 4 at the end of "construct or convert buildings". He has never given me a satisfactory answer as to why that should not be included. When I wrote to him some time ago before Committee stage, I drew the noble Lord's attention to the Anderton lift on the River Wear, which is a great structure, although it is not a building. Its purpose or function is to lift barges from one level of the river to another. It is a great machine which moves on rollers. It is not a building of any sort but it is a structure. Therefore, the word "structure" should be included to cover such things as the Anderton lift.
In Committee I asked him another question to which I received no answer, and that rather surprised me. Paragraph 1(3), new subsection (2)(a) refers to,
"any land, building or structure".
I agree with that wording entirely. But I am surprised that the word "structure" is appropriate in the schedule but is somehow not appropriate in the main part of the Bill. There may be a reason for that. I am sure that there is because the parliamentary draftsman would not do that if there were no reason. However, I asked this question in Committee and did not receive any answer. I should like to know why it is appropriate to include "structure" in one part of the Bill but not in another.
784
With those remarks, I welcome the Minister's two amendments which he has tabled. I am extremely grateful to him for listening to my pleas, in so far as he has done so. However, I hope that he will reconsider and at the next stage of the Bill, or even in another place, take that further step which will mean that the Minister and I are in total amity and agreement, a consequence which is much to be desired.
Viscount Caldecote: My Lords, we often criticise Ministers for being inflexible and resisting amendments proposed to Bills. Perhaps I may say how extremely pleased I am that the Minister has responded to the amendments suggested by the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in Committee and that he has shown such admirable flexibility. I fully support the amendment.
Perhaps I may add that it is a very happy coincidence that this morning there was the parliamentary launch of the Year of Engineering Success, which is to take place in 1997. Therefore, it is a happy coincidence that this amendment is brought forward on this day. I feel that we should be satisfied that the admirable flexibility which the Minister has shown. I do not feel like joining the noble Lord, Lord Howie, in pressing my noble friend to go further.
Lord Monkswell: My Lords, I, too, wish to thank the Minister for his ready acquiescence to the suggestion of my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon at the Committee stage. However, I hope I may ask the Minister a question in support of what my noble friend has said this afternoon. Paragraph 1(3), new subsection (2)(b) states:
"any object which in their opinion is of outstanding historic, artistic or scientific interest".
Having included the word "historic", which encompasses anything in the national heritage arena, we are worried that it should need to be qualified, or added to, by the words "artistic or scientific", but that no mention is made of engineering. That is one of the difficulties we are faced with. Will the Minister consider either extending the list, as he has done in a previous section, or deleting the words "artistic or scientific"? That would cover the argument we have made as regards making a distinction in the heritage arena between engineering and something that is scientific or artistic.
I hope I may ask a further question. What is the Government's interpretation of the word "historic"? I believe the generally accepted meaning of "historic" is that which has applied in the past. However, I suggest that it might encompass something that has just been created. I refer to a prototype revolutionary motor car which is not destined to go into production but which is an engineering marvel. At the point of manufacture of that engineering marvel it may not be considered to be historic in the sense that it is something from the past, but it could be construed as historic in the sense that it is a milestone in the engineering field. and therefore in the future it will be considered historic. Therefore it is worthy of protection. I leave the matter there. I support

785
my noble friend Lord Howie in the suggestions that he has made for future supportive action by the Government.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I regret to say that I was not present when these matters were discussed at the Committee stage. The last thing I want to do is to complain when Ministers respond in an understanding manner to amendments which seem to have general support. I came to the Chamber this afternoon because I could not quite understand the purpose of this amendment. It seems to me extremely unlikely that the trustees would ever want to give financial assistance to items of an engineering interest which did not have that engineering interest by virtue of being historic, archaeological, architectural or scientific. The last thing I want to do is to introduce a note of dissent because the measure clearly takes nothing away. However, it poses the question whether engineering comprises a different category and is therefore subject to different considerations. Would engineering include electronic equipment? Obviously the main industrial revolution took place 200 years ago and therefore early examples of engineering equipment or buildings might well be 100 or 200 years old. However, in the case of computers one might be talking—
Lord Strabolgi: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but if he had been present at the Committee stage he would have heard my noble friend Lord Howie give a long description in his excellent case for including the word "engineering". If the noble Lord had read the annual report of the National Heritage Memorial Fund he would note that the fund already makes provision for a great many of these items which could be categorised as historic engineering. I am sorry the noble Lord was not present at the Committee stage. He is trying to pick up the pieces on a matter when he was not present at the original discussion.
Lord Stewartby: My Lords, I have apologised for not being present at the earlier stage. However, I remain unclear as to how engineering matters are not already covered by the words in the clause. Is any differentiation intended by the choice of the word "engineering" rather than "industrial" or something else? Does the word "historic" cover anything that was produced as recently as 20 years ago in a rapidly developing technology such as that of computers? That is the point of my question. 1 hope that my noble friend can enlighten me.
Lord Howie of Troon: My Lords, if the noble Lord wishes to meet me outside the Chamber I shall explain this matter to him and all will be made clear in a few moments.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Inglewood: My Lords, as I hope I intimated in my opening remarks I intended to oblige your Lordships with these two amendments. I am reassured that the noble Lord, Lord Howie, is grateful that his house has been listed. People do not always feel that way about the process.
786
The point that my noble friend Lord Stewartby made is one that I made on the previous occasion that we discussed this matter. I have been given legal advice to the effect that the addition of engineering will not extend the scope of the Bill, and that the trustees will not now be enabled to do anything more than they previously would have done had this word not been suggested for inclusion. We tabled this amendment because a number of noble Lords felt strongly that this was an important statement about the importance of engineering in our society. I do not think anyone would dissent from that basic proposition.
As regards the second point that my noble friend made when he asked how old something has to be to be considered historic, we are entering the realms of theology. I have absolutely no doubt that something of the kind he is describing that will commend itself to the trustees will almost by definition be sufficiently important in the development and evolution of whatever activity we are referring to to make it historic in the context of that form of technology, and hence bring it within the scope of the word "historic" as used in this Bill. I shall consider the remarks made by the noble Lords, Lord Howie and Lord Monkswell. I said on the previous occasion we discussed this that I did not think that anything was added to the substance of the matter. However, I shall reconsider the matter, but I do so making it quite clear that I give no guarantee to be as obliging on the next occasion as I have been on this occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood moved Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 42, leave out ("or").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 2 I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 3. With these two amendments we return to the issue of lottery funding for the Victoria County History, the Dictionary of National Biography and other similar projects. I loosely described those projects at the Committee stage as being benchmark works of historical research. I believe there is total agreement across your Lordships' House that such works should be within the funding remit of the trustees of the National Heritage Memorial Fund. It was with that fact in mind that my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Pilkington and the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Strabolgi, added their names to amendments at the Committee stage. It also prompted me to bring forward amendments in my own name.
However, on that occasion doubts were expressed as to whether my amendments would achieve the desired effect. As the House will know, I therefore decided not to move them and agreed to look at the matter again. Since then I have examined the matter further and had the most helpful discussions with my noble friends Lord Beloff and Lord Pilkington and the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Strabolgi. In that light I now bring forward revised amendments as on the Marshalled List.
The legal advice that I am receiving is still that the new Section 3A of the 1980 Act as amended. in accordance with the earlier ideas that I had, would

787
encompass support for the Victoria County History. However, as I explained then, I am most anxious that the matter should be put beyond doubt and at the same time put in a way which protects the National Heritage Memorial Fund from pressure to support the general run of historical and topographical research and from frivolous applications. My conclusion is that it can best be done by enlarging further the scope of new Section 3A. This provision will empower the trustees to fund projects which relate to an important aspect of the history, natural history or landscape of this country and are of public benefit. The provision currently embraces exhibition and archive projects. My amendments will extend it to include the compilation and publication of a comprehensive work of reference or the publication of such a work of reference that has already been compiled. The amendments also cover the publication of archive material and any activity ancillary to the projects specified in new Section 3A.
I am satisfied that these amendments will ensure that the Victoria County History and other comparable undertakings are within the remit of the fund and are thus eligible for lottery support. The noble Lords with whom I have discussed the matter agree and I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Pilkington has added his name to the amendments, as have my noble friend Lord Beloff and the noble Lords, Lord Donoughue and Lord Strabolgi.
It will of course be for the National Heritage Memorial Fund trustees themselves to determine their funding priorities in the light of their statutory powers and the resources available. The Government's willingness to bring forward this provision must not therefore be seen as prejudging the view which the trustees take of any funding application they receive in respect of the Victoria County History or a similar project. I must also stress that this extension of the National Heritage Memorial Fund's powers does not mean that the lottery can now be regarded as a potential source of funding for mainstream academic research and publication in the field of history. Nor would I expect it to be available to support publishing ventures that should be self-financing. On that basis, I commend the amendments to the House.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 43, at end insert—
("(c) publish archive material, or
(d) compile and publish a comprehensive work of reference (or publish a comprehensive work of reference that has previously been compiled),
to do any ancillary thing.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule [Consequential Amendments]:
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 4, line 13, at end insert (", engineering").
On Question, amendment agreed to.

Channel 4 (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1996
3.52 p.m
Lord Inglewood Lord Inglewood rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October he approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Broadcasting (Application of Excess Revenues) Order 1996, which we are debating today, honours the commitment I gave at Report stage of the Broadcasting Bill on 7th March to end Channel 4's compulsory payments into its statutory reserve at the earliest parliamentary opportunity.
The draft order is made under Section 27(7) of the Broadcasting Act 1990 as amended by Section 83(4) of the Broadcasting Act 1996. It will reduce from 50 per cent. to nil the percentage of excess revenues Channel 4 must pay into the reserve under the provisions of the Channel 4 funding formula set out in the 1990 Act.
Although many Members of the House are familiar with the intricacies of the Channel 4 funding formula contained in the Broadcasting Act 1990 from our debates on this issue during the passage of this year's Act, I shall set out for the benefit of others a brief précis of the history to the order.
Under the terms of the 1990 Act, Channel 4 is guaranteed funding from the Channel 3 companies should its income from advertising fall below 14 per cent. of total national television advertising revenues. To date that has not happened, and Channel 4's income is currently 21 per cent. of advertising revenues.
The 1990 Act, however, also provides that if Channel 4's income from advertising rises above the 14 per cent. threshold, the excess revenue above that threshold must be distributed according to arrangements also specified in the 1990 Act. Half of that excess goes to the Independent Television Commission for onward distribution to the Channel 3 companies, 25 per cent. goes to a statutory reserve fund held by Channel 4 and 25 per cent. can be added to Channel 4's current expenditure plans. Should Channel 4's income fall below the 14 per cent. threshold, however, the funds which have accrued in the statutory reserve are its first recourse to make good the shortfall in funding. If and when the funds in the reserve are exhausted, it is for the Channel 3 companies to make up the shortfall between Channel 4's income and the 14 per cent. threshold. The liability of the Channel 3 companies is, however, limited to 2 per cent. of total national advertising revenue in any one year.
The funding formula was introduced by the 1990 Act as part of new arrangements whereby Channel 4 was to sell its own advertising rather than rely on financing from the Channel 3 companies. Prior to the 1990 Act, Channel 4 had been financed by a subscription from the ITV companies which sold Channel 4's advertising airtime. The funding formula was a safety net, because it was feared that the new arrangements might not provide Channel 4 with sufficient income properly to fulfil its remit.
During the passage of the Broadcasting Bill earlier this year, there were calls to abolish the Channel 4 funding formula. Many, including Channel 4 itself, believed that, in the light of the success that Channel 4 has enjoyed since it began selling its own advertising, the financial safety net was no longer required and the payments being made by Channel 4 to the ITV companies should be ploughed back into the channel's programme production.
The Government were not wholly persuaded by these arguments. It was accordingly decided to retain the basic framework of the funding formula but to take steps to increase the level of income Channel 4 can retain. The Broadcasting Act 1996 therefore introduced the power to adjust by order the distribution of Channel 4's excess revenues above the statutory threshold of 14 per cent. of television advertising revenues.
The level of funds in the statutory reserve, which stood at £84.8 million on 31st December 1995, is sufficient to cover any conceivable shortfall in income in the immediate future. To that end we have tabled the order before the House today which removes the requirement for Channel 4 to make any payment into its reserve and thereby doubles at a stroke the proportion of advertising revenue above the threshold level which Channel 4 is able to retain.
The Government have also long made it clear that we intend to amend the proportion of any such "surplus" which goes to the Channel 3 companies. However, as we stated during the passage of the Broadcasting Bill, the provisions of the Broadcasting Act 1990 did not permit any change in the financial equilibrium between Channels 3 and 4 under the funding formula before the end of 1997. As it was on that basis that the Channel 3 companies bid for their franchises, we are not willing to make any change to the operation of that relationship before 1998.
I also announced during the passage of the Bill the general lines on which we propose to use the new power in respect of payments to Channel 3 companies. We would reduce the level of payments from Channel 4 to the Channel 3 companies from their current level of 50 per cent. of Channel 4's excess income above the 14 per cent. threshold. These changes were to be in two stages, taking effect from 1998 and 1999 respectively. The Government, as I said, intended to make decisions on the exact changes to the percentages in the formula nearer 1998. That remains the position.
The order before us today will enable Channel 4 to spend tens of millions of pounds per annum on programming. It fulfils a specific undertaking to Parliament which was widely welcomed on all sides and in both Houses. I commend the order to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 15th October be approved [1st Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Inglewood.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Magistrates Courts (Remands in Custody) (Amendment) Order 1997
3.58 p.m.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch)The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Blatch) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this order provides that Section 128A of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980, which enables magistrates' courts to remand defendants in custody for a maximum period of up to 28 days, shall have effect in all petty sessions areas in England and Wales in relation to those under the age of 17, as well as those of 17 and over.
This order is a consequence of Section 52 of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996. As noble Lords may recall, Section 52 provides that Sections 128(1A) and (3A) and 128(A) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980 shall apply to defendants under the age of 17.
The effect is that the maximum length of time for which courts may remand to custody a juvenile who is awaiting summary trial or committal to the Crown Court will be in line with that for adult defendants. This means that on second and subsequent appearances of a juvenile in court, the court may order a remand to custody of a juvenile for up to 28 days, rather than eight days as at present.
This order brings into effect the change to Section 128A provided by Section 52 by providing, as I have said, that Section 128A will have effect in all petty sessions areas in relation to those under the age of 17. Section 128A already has effect in these areas in relation to those aged 17 and over. We intend to bring the amendments to Section 128(1A) and (3A) into effect on 1st February by means of a separate appointed day order.
Frequent court appearances where no change in remand arrangements are sought can be disruptive for young people as well as being unproductive. The new arrangements will give courts greater flexibility in determining the appropriate remand period and reduce the number of adjournments. Courts will remain free to set shorter remand periods than the maximum if they consider it is desirable and defendants will be able to make bail applications before the end of a remand period if there is a change in circumstances.
We will be issuing guidance to the courts and to other criminal justice agencies to make sure that the effect of the new arrangements and the flexibility that they provide are fully understood. This will, in particular, make clear that the welfare of the child must be considered in determining the appropriate remand period.
The order will be subject to debate in another place. If it is approved by both Houses, the Home Secretary will then sign the order and it will come into operation on 1st February. I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 20th November be approved [5th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Baroness Blatch.)
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I understand that the matter has not yet been debated in another place, which is unusual. Normally we have the benefit of its opinion before orders come to us. None of us likes juveniles, people under 18, being remanded in custody. We do not like them being in prison. We certainly do not like them being in police cells; nor do we like them being in detention centres when it can possibly be avoided.
However, from what the Minister said, I am relieved to hear that in itself the order will not increase the amount of time that juveniles will spend in custody. It will simply reduce the number of occasions on which they are required to go before the courts and the courts have to grant an adjournment. On that basis and on the basis that the order implements legislation which has already been passed, we have no objection to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy (Variation) Scheme (Approval) Order 1996
4.3 p.m.
Lord Lucas Lord Lucas rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the order is to make two small changes to the 1987 Home-Grown Cereals Authority Levy Scheme. The authority exists to improve the production and marketing of home-grown cereals and, since 1989, oilseeds. The authority is funded almost exclusively by industry levies which it uses to commission research and development, provide a market information service, encourage the development of UK cereals exports and support food from Britain. Fourteen of its current 16 members are appointed specifically to represent the interests of the levy payers and after consultation with relevant trade organisations. It therefore remains directly answerable to the industry which it has served for over 30 years.
The order before us today concerns the arrangements by which the authority collects the levy on cereals. In the first place it concerns the levies payable to the authority by cereal growers and by cereal dealers. Except where grain is sold directly into intervention, cereal grower levy payments to the authority are collected by the first purchaser or dealer. Therefore the levy due from the dealer is a gross figure which includes the grower levy, which the dealer recovers from the grower and an element from the dealer himself.
Dealers are permitted to make a small deduction from the gross levy before passing the balance to the authority. This deduction—or commission—is intended to provide the dealers with some recompense for any expenses which they may incur when collecting the
792
grower levy on behalf of the authority. The principal change being made by the order before us today is to reduce from 5 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. the deduction which cereal dealers may make from the gross levy before passing the balance of the levy to the Home-Grown Cereals Authority.
The dealer commission has remained at 5 per cent. of the gross dealer levy throughout the life of the 1987 levy scheme. During that period, however, the cereal growers have chosen substantially to increase their financial contribution to the authority's activities whereas the dealers have not. For example, in 1988-89, 78 per cent. of the gross dealer levy came from the growers, whereas in 1996-97 the proportion has risen to 90 per cent. This means that a commission of 5 per cent. of the gross levy now takes a disproportionately large share of the growers' levy contribution. Both growers and dealers recognise the inequity of this situation. hence the present proposal to reduce commission from 5 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. At current levy rates, a reduction from 5 per cent. to 3.7 per cent. would limit commission in monetary terms to approximately the sum deducted by the dealers in 1995-96, the last year before the growers agreed a further substantial increase of 10 pence per tonne in their own levy contribution.
The opportunity is also being taken to make a second minor change to the 1987 levy scheme. This will make it clear that the Home-Grown Cereals Authority may instruct persons not employed by it—for example, a firm of accountants—to inspect cereal grower, dealer and processor records on its behalf for the purpose of determining liability for levy. It is clearly not cost effective for a small organisation such as the authority to retain sufficient employees with the required level of expertise to inspect records of levy payers scattered the length and breadth of the country.
The order will not come into force until 1st July 1997 which is the start of the authority's next financial year. However, it is being brought forward now because the reduction in dealer commission will obviously have an effect on the actual income which the authority can expect to receive from a given rate of levy. Therefore the authority needs to know what the commission rate will be well before it must finalise and forward to Ministers its financial estimates and levy recommendations for 1997-98. Ministers would normally expect to receive these around Easter each year.
Both changes follow extensive consultation with, and have the support of, relevant UK cereal trade interests. I therefore hope that your Lordships will be able to approve this short but useful order which I commend to the House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th November be approved [4th Report from the Joint Committee].—(Lord Lucas.)
Lord Carter: My Lords, as a cereals and oilseed grower, I should declare an interest in the order. I believe that the Minister answered the questions that I was going to ask. The change is welcome and agreed by the industry and it is clear that it has no effect on the growers' levy. It cannot be clawed back from the grower because of the way in which the levy is collected.

793
I would have asked the Minister what kind of inspectors will be authorised besides the officers of the authority. However, he said that they would be accountants employed by the authority.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Deregulation (Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951) (Repeal) Order 1996
4.7 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon Baroness Miller of Hendon rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [4th Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, the draft order is concerned with removing the burdens currently imposed by the Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Act 1951. The Rag Flock and Other Filling Materials Regulations 1981 would fall with the repeal. If the House wishes me to go into the detail of the 1951 Act's provisions, I can do so.
The controls placed in the rag flock legislation are considered to be over-prescriptive and bureaucratic. Furthermore, both businesses and the enforcement agencies consider that the methods used to assess the cleanliness in the rag flock legislation have become outmoded.
The Government are satisfied that the repeal of the Act will not compromise the protection it was enacted to provide. This protection will be offered by the existing provisions of the General Product Safety Regulations 1994 (which implement an EU directive) and the British Standard 1425 of 1991. These place responsibilities on producers and distributors of products (including second-hand products) to supply only those products that are safe, that is in this case, products that are clean, free from contaminants and impurities. In order to ensure that producers and manufacturers supply products that are safe, the regulations attract the relevant enforcement provisions of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 in relation to prohibition and warning notices, suspension notices and appeals, forfeiture, the power to obtain information, the power to enter and search premises and to take samples. The measure will therefore not reduce the necessary protection for consumers.
The proposal has completed the preliminary scrutiny procedures for the deregulation orders under the Deregulation and Contracting Out Act 1994. The Delegated Powers Scrutiny Committee of your Lordships' House and the Deregulation Committee of the other place have separately assessed and reported on the proposal. Both committees have indicated that they are content with the draft order as it stands.
The order will remove controls which are considered to be over-prescriptive, bureaucratic and outmoded, without reducing the necessary consumer protection. Therefore I commend the order to your Lordships. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 4th November be approved [4th Report from the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee].—(Baroness Miller of Hendon.)
Lord Gladwin of Clee: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that detailed explanation of the order. We on this side of the House wish it a fair wind. It is clear from the documentation that many of the requirements under the 1951 Act have been overtaken by subsequent legislation. I am grateful that she made reference to the general product safety regulations. The response from the Minister, Mr Ian Taylor, is very helpful.
I also note that the Fire Officers Association is quite happy with the provisions of the order, and although the National Consumer Council was invited, it was not able in time to submit its views about the new order. But the committee is satisfied that the necessary consultation has taken place and therefore, as I said, this side of the House wish it a fair wind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Firearms (Amendment) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and to be printed.

Land Registration Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Browne-Wilkinson.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clauses 1 to 3 agreed to.
Lord Coleraine Lord Coleraine moved an amendment:
After Clause 3, insert the following new clause—
Inspection of leases of residential flats
(". After subsection (1)(a) of section 112 of the Land Registration Act 1925 (inspection of register and other documents) insert—
"(aa) copies, in the custody of the Registrar, of leases of residential flats referred to in the register, and".")
The noble Lord said: When I supported this Bill at Second Reading, I had given notice to the noble and learned Lord and to my noble friend Lady Trumpington that I considered that the Bill gave an appropriate opportunity to revisit the 1988 Land Registration Act. That Act opened up the Land Registry for the first time. It gave public access to most of the information about the ownership of land in England and Wales held in the registry. A notable exception at that time, and now, is that copies of registered leases held in the registers remain secret.
The case that I made at Second Reading—I need not repeat it now—was that much water had passed under the bridge since 1988 and that it was now appropriate to reconsider the matter as it was left then. There would be great benefit to all actual and potential flat owners if they and those who advise them had access as of right to copies of registered residential flat leases. This amendment would provide for that change.
In responding for the Government at Second Reading, my noble friend regretted that time had not permitted an answer to be prepared and given to me. She undertook to ask the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to write to me with a substantive reply. I have now received that reply. I shall be happy to provide any Members of the Committee with a copy of his letter. My noble and learned friend wrote that the Government could not support an amendment to this Bill to compel the Land Registry to provide copies of residential flat leases as of right. However, he reminded me that the registrar has a statutory discretion, which is occasionally exercised, to provide copy leases in cases where there is no right of inspection. My noble and learned friend writes also:
"The Registrar accepts that, since that section was replaced in 1988. circumstances have shown that there is sometimes a need to see copy leases of flats other than the one owned by the applicant and there have been some cases where the discretion has been exercised accordingly.
"Following consideration of the points you made in the debate, the Registrar proposes that there should be a liberal use of the discretion so that anyone who can show an interest in obtaining copy leases of residential flats may do so upon payment of the usual fee. Without being limited to such cases, the exercise of the discretion would encompass any person involved in a process of collective enfranchisement or who is interested either as an existing lessee or as an intending one in a flat in a purpose built block of flats or a converted building."
I found that encouraging. It may well be that my noble friend will be able to satisfy me that my concerns can be met in that way. I look forward to her response. In the meantime, I beg to move.
Baroness Trumpington: I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Coleraine for giving the Chamber an opportunity to hear what my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has been able to offer as an interim measure to go towards meeting the noble Lord's point about access to copy leases held by HM Land Registry. Further details will be addressed by the joint working group which is considering land registration. Meanwhile, as I said during the Second Reading debate, the Government wish this short but useful Bill a fair wind for the remainder of its passage through this Chamber and in due course in another place.
Lord Browne-Wilkinson: I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, having received that assurance, will be able to withdraw the amendment, so as to enable this Bill, which everybody agrees is valuable, to go through swiftly. Otherwise, we have to move to Report stage formally, which will hold it up. I trust that the assurances from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor may be sufficient.
Lord Coleraine: I am very pleased to reassure the noble and learned Lord. I am very satisfied with the
796
response from my noble friend. I should like to thank my noble and learned friend and the registrar for dealing with the matter so speedily in the way that they have done. I am sure that the changes being introduced will be of great benefit to many lessees and those who advise them. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Remaining clauses and schedules agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

Theft (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.18 p.m.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Goff of Chieveley.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Obtaining a money transfer by deception]:
Lord Donaldson of Lymington Lord Donaldson of Lymington moved Amendment No. 1:
Page I, line 7, leave out ("money") and insert ("value").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this Amendment, I shall speak, with the leave of the Committee, to all the amendments in my name, since they form a cohesive and, I believe, coherent whole.
I made clear at Second Reading that my interest in the Bill arises from the fact that I am chairman of the Financial Law Panel. That is a non-profit making body set up by the Bank of England and the Corporation of London to act, in effect, as a specialist law commission for the wholesale financial markets of the United Kingdom.
As the Committee knows, in July this year, the House, acting in its judicial capacity heard the Preddy appeals. Those appeals concerned electronic money transfers as part of mortgage frauds. The decision that no criminal offence had been committed surprised many in the legal profession, though I should make it clear that I do not for one moment suggest that it was wrong. It did, however, have the practical effect of decriminalising some fraudulent electronic money transfers. It also had the effect of decriminalising the fraudulent electronic transfer of bonds and securities in so far as they are indistinguishable from money transfers.
This Chamber, in its legislative capacity, is now being invited to close one barrel of what is in truth a double-barrelled loophole in the law. My amendments seek to close the other barrel of the Preddy loophole. They are designed to be simple and discrete. They add "investments", where appropriate, and substitute "value" for "money", thereby including both money and bonds and securities.
The Law Commission, in its admirable report which gave birth to this Bill, sought to confine its provisions to what may be described, without disrespect, as the "Preddv mischief". Unfortunately it failed to appreciate that the electronic transfer of investments is a significant part of that mischief. That that should be the case may seem surprising unless one appreciates the way in which the wholesale financial markets operate, not only in London, but also worldwide.
If any physical manifestation of the bonds or securities is created by the issuer—and sometimes it is not—it or a promise to issue on request is conveyed to a custodian bank or similar institution. Thereafter, all dealings in the bonds or securities are affected by credit and debit entries in the accounts of the transferor or transferee kept with the custodian. No physical transfer ever takes place and the whole process is indistinguishable from the processes involved in a transfer of foreign currency held to the credit of a bank account.
My noble friend Lord Alexander of Weedon, who is unable to be present today, tells me that the banking community considers that the change I have proposed would make a valuable contribution on the footing that it could be dealt with as a discrete point which will not jeopardise the speedy passage of the Bill. The Bank of England expressed a similar view. The point is indeed discrete. The amendments cannot adversely affect any legitimate transaction since the Bill, with or without amendments, is solely concerned with dishonesty.
I accept that the amendments may cover some transactions which would fall within the criminal law notwithstanding Preddy. But that is equally true of some money transfers which will be covered by the Bill. So the only true objection to my amendments is their potential effect upon the speedy passage of the Bill. That is a matter which is exclusively within the control of the Government. I hoped and expected a degree of co-operation and joint endeavour which could and would have achieved that objective. I have been gravely disappointed. Instead, I have been told that this is all very complicated and difficult, which it is not. I have been told that my amendments could have unforeseen adverse consequences. No one can give a guarantee concerning the unforeseen; but for the reasons I have given I can guarantee that they will not be adverse.
I accept that the Home Office, in its responsibility for the reform of the criminal law, has unrivalled experience of legislating in haste and repenting at leisure. However, I can assure the Committee that this is one of those rare cases where it would not be at risk.
No one doubts the urgent need for this Bill to become law; no one would wish to impede its progress in any way. Proper consideration of a limited widening of the scope of the Bill could have been achieved if the Government's attitude had been different. As matters stand, it seems that I must reluctantly accept that, so far
798
as this Bill is concerned, my attempt to enable this Chamber to fulfil its traditional role as a revising Chamber will fail. I beg to move.
Lord Goff of Chieveley: Perhaps I may be allowed to make one or two points about the amendments of my noble and learned friend. We should be extremely grateful to him for drawing attention to the specific matter to which he referred. There is obviously great force in what he said and plainly his proposed amendments raise a matter of considerable importance.
I have only one worry, which my noble and learned friend foreshadowed in speaking to your Lordships. The gap in our law revealed by Preddy, which is concerned with straightforward money transactions, is literally enormous. It potentially affects a vast range of transactions, but especially mortgage and other lending transactions. It is obviously a matter of deep concern, especially for the banks and building societies. It is essential that we move as quickly as possible to fill the gap. The amendments of my noble and learned friend, though important, do not cover so wide a range of transactions as those.
My noble and learned friend's proposal was before the Law Commission last summer and the Law Commission then took the view that it was best to go ahead with an absolutely clean, straightforward Bill to deal with the Preddv problem itself. There is also a review of dishonesty pending at the Law Commission and it is anxious to proceed with that as soon and as quickly as possible. It will be possible for my noble and learned friend's proposals to be dealt with in that review.
One reason why the Preddy gap occurred was revealed during the hearing in your Lordships' Chamber in its judicial function; that is, that there was an over-hasty amendment to the proposed legislation. That was revealed in Preddy itself and it became clear to me on that occasion that something may appear to be simple, but when looked at with care it is not quite so simple. I am grateful to my noble and learned friend but beg him to be so kind as to consider withdrawing his amendments.
Baroness Blatch: I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, for bringing this issue before the Committee today. The noble and learned Lord highlighted an issue which requires careful consideration and he put the case for the amendments with characteristic clarity and incisiveness.
There are a number of reasons why we have difficulty with these amendments and why I shall invite the Committee to reject them. This is not a new point. The Law Commission looked at the point when it was raised by the Financial Law Panel during its consultation exercise this summer. The commission concluded that it needed further consideration and consultation that was not possible in the timescale of the main Preddy review. It proposed to include it in its current review of dishonesty. That is the right way to deal with the problem and I shall return to that specific point in a moment. It may be helpful if I explain why the Government prefer not to tackle the possibility of

799
problems in this area by the type of amendment proposed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson.
This is a complex problem which may exist in a wide range of circumstances well beyond the position of the well-known securities depositories. The essence of the problem revealed in Preddy is that when one writes a cheque, money is not actually transferred from a specific bank to that of the payee. What happens is that an instruction is given to the bank to reduce the amount standing in one account and to obtain an increase in the amount standing in the payee's account. In essence, the bank account is a record of the extent to which one has the right to call for the bank to deliver another asset; in the case of a bank account, that is cash.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, argues that it does not matter what is in the account. It may be shares, eurobonds or any other security. In fact, it could be anything. Thus, for example, I can place metal in a warehouse approved by the London Metal Exchange and obtain a warrant which may be traded on that exchange. If I am a farmer I can put grain into an elevator on that basis or milk with a farmer's co-operative. But each situation will be different and the rights will depend on the precise legal nature of the contract between the depositor and the depository. It may therefore depend on the whole structure of law relating to rights, deposits and trusts in the jurisdiction concerned.
The Committee will no doubt be pleased to learn that no such problem can arise in relation to the holding and transfer of dematerialised securities in the new CREST system for the London securities market. In the CREST system, both the instruction to transfer and the evidence of title to the shares are fully dematerialised and this does not affect the nature of the rights held by the owner or the transferee.
Although the shares are dematerialised, there is still a company register, whether in paper or electronic form, which records the members of the company for the time being, and which must be amended each time there is a transfer of ownership of the shares. A transfer of shares is procured by the erasure of one name from the register and the insertion of a new name. The CREST system transfers to the purchaser the ownership of the actual shares in the company, not merely the rights of an account holder to call for delivery of a share.
At the more technical level, we should want to look in much more detail than we have had time for so far at the terms of the amendment. Specialist terms such as "investment" and "investment business" are taken from the Financial Services Act and have precise, carefully drawn meanings. We will need to be certain before legislation is brought forward on this point that the coverage and the cross-references are right. For example, whether or not a piece of property constitutes an investment may depend on the terms of a contract which provides for its forward delivery. Certain persons can provide depository-type services without doing investment business.
I said I would return to the consideration of this issue by the Law Commission. I am pleased to be able to tell the Committee that the Secretary of State is minded to
800
ask the Law Commission to look at the issue raised by the amendments as a matter of priority, and I shall write to the noble and learned Lord about this. I can give him a personal assurance that I will want to press this myself, because I know how important it is to reach a conclusion on the issue. I am, therefore, asking the Committee to reject the amendments, not because these are not important issues, but because there are a number of matters to which I have already pointed which need to be resolved and consulted upon before legislating.
I do not believe that this opportunity should be taken ahead of more detailed work by the Law Commission on the issues raised by the noble and learned Lord. This Bill is urgent and it is important. There is no doubt of that. A problem has been revealed by Regina v. Preddy. It is a well specified problem and I believe we should tackle it now. The Bill provides a well drafted solution. It has been thoroughly researched and crafted by the Law Commission and we are most grateful for the tremendous effort in doing this work so speedily.
This well thought through measure needs to be enacted quickly, not only for the reasons that I mentioned but also for those that were put forward by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff. Although the noble and learned Lord, Lord Donaldson, feels strongly about making progress on the subject of these amendments, I hope he will feel able to withdraw his amendments so that the Bill may proceed without delay and the Law Commission can take up the problem that has been properly identified by the amendments.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Donaldson of Lymington: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the crumb of comfort which I have been given that there will be an expedited inquiry by the Law Commission into this issue. I hope it will be divorced from the general inquiry which is so wide-ranging that it will go on for the better part of my remaining lifetime. I also hope that whatever government are in power at that time will provide time to enact whatever are the results of that inquiry. So far as the idea of keeping an account of the contents of a grain silo is concerned, I regard that as somewhat far-fetched. The idea that the London Metal Exchange may use accounts of this nature is not far fetched, and I was well aware of it in putting down my amendment. However, it is only the dishonest metal trader who would have trouble with my amendments. In no way can it affect honest trading.
In view of the feeling of the Committee, and with a view to making a contribution to the progress of this Bill, I ask leave to withdraw this amendment, and, if I may say in advance, I shall not be moving any of the other amendments.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 2 to 4 not moved.]
Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Goff of Chieveley moved Amendment No. 5:
Page I, line 16, at end insert ("(in particular)").
The noble and learned Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 14. They both serve exactly the same function: simply to

801
make sure that the matters described in both places as "immaterial" shall not be the only matters which are so regarded. The first amendment was tabled in response to a suggestion by my noble and learned friend Lord Wilberforce and my noble friend Lord Williams of Mostyn that the specified matter should not be exhaustive. The second amendment has the same purpose in the second clause.
In moving this amendment, perhaps I may express the hope that the Committee will agree that in view of the widespread support for the principles of the Bill as introduced, it will be possible to take the remaining stages formally early next week. I understand that, subject, of course, to proceedings in another place, the Bill has a good chance of becoming law by Christmas. I very much hope your Lordships will agree that it would be wholly for the best if this should happen.
Baroness Blatch: The two amendments have the same effect: to make it clear that matters described as "immaterial" in new Section 15A(4) and new Section 24A(5) are not exhaustive. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Goff, has said, they are minor amendments but nonetheless important. As was said at Second Reading, an exhaustive list of immaterial matters could tie the hands of the judiciary when determining whether an offence has been committed. The Government welcome this clarification and we lend our full support to these amendments.
Lord Wilberforce: I am grateful for these amendments, particularly Amendment No. 5, which responds to observations I made on Second Reading which received an echo from the Opposition Benches from the noble Lord, Lord Williams of Mostyn. I must say, if it is not too ungrateful, that the amendments do not go as far as I would have liked. I would have preferred not to have a list at all. But if we are to have a list, insertion of these words, if sanctified by the parliamentary draftsman, is to me satisfactory. I am glad to take the half-a-loaf which is offered on this occasion.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 6 to 11 not moved.]
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2 [Retaining credits from dishonest sources, etc.]:
[Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 not moved.]
Lord Goff of Chieveley Lord Goff of Chieveley moved Amendment No.14:
Page 3, line 8, after ("immaterial") insert ("(in particular)").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 15 to 19 not moved.]
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [The new offences: jurisdiction]:
[Amendment No. 20 not moved.]
Clause 3 agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Amendment) Bill [H.L.]
4.39 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. Before I speak about the Bill, I declare an interest as a practising reproductive medicine doctor, working in a sizeable clinic which deals with problems related to reproduction and, on occasion, problems related to the particular circumstances about which we are speaking today.
I do not want for a minute to suggest that we should be changing the law for a single person. I do not think that that would be appropriate. I hope that we shall not hear the rather facile phrase that hard cases make bad law. Your Lordships' House is well known for its ability to make difficult judgments in very hard moral circumstances.
This is an exceptionally difficult issue. It concerns the posthumous insemination of a woman after her husband or partner has died. It is something which was never discussed in detail during the proceedings on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill in 1990. I am therefore grateful to the House for allowing me to introduce this Second Reading debate and to discuss the difficult moral problems that arise from it.
Although we do not and should not be changing the law for a single case, I must inevitably deal in some detail with the circumstances of one case, Mrs. Diane Blood, because it illustrates so well the problems faced by a few people in this tragic predicament. It is a hugely distressing one. It is no exaggeration to say that when I read her affidavit at two o'clock in the morning I was not in an emotional state. I was quite tired and I was about to go to bed. I had never met her. But I was moved to tears in my dining room because I believed that a fundamental injustice was being done. The whole context of the affidavit—every single word of it—rang out a truth which I had heard from other women in that situation.
Had I encountered the case 15 years ago my reaction would have been totally different. There is no question that I would have been horrified at the idea of posthumous insemination. I would not have considered it possible; I would not have considered it moral; I would not have considered it good for the grief and bereavement of the partner and the resolution of that bereavement; and I would not have considered it good for the child. However, my attitude to this problem has radically changed and it has changed because of extraordinary experience.
The clinic I run is one of the largest in the world for assisted reproductive technologies, so we see a huge number of people in quite unusual circumstances. My attitude has changed because I have come into contact with young men who have developed cancers. That may

803
seem odd but it happens that modern cancer treatments, some chemotherapy and most radiotherapy, particularly where it concerns total body irradiation, have the almost inevitable result of sterilising the man. As medicine has slowly improved, the prognosis for cancer treatment has become better and better. When we treat Hodgkin's Disease or leukaemia there is a high probability that men, particularly young men, will survive. The depository at Queen Charlotte's Hospital has been a depository for the Royal Marsden Hospital for a long time. For many years we have stored the sperm of men undergoing cancer treatment at the Marsden and elsewhere because we know, and they know, that later on they will be sterile but they may want to have a child once they are restored to full health. Medicine is by no means perfect and some of those men have died. Before 1990 we could take a decision—a medical decision—based on the evidence in front of us, perhaps with reference to our ethics committee, whether or not to allow the posthumous insemination of the widow if that was being requested. Over the years I have seen a regular small number of these cases. Since 1990 it has been a requirement that we have written consent. In general that has not been a problem and it is only recently that the cases we are discussing have started to emerge.
In every single case, after counselling of the widow and proper medical management has been conducted, we have seen women produce entirely happy children and bring them up well without any evidence of deprivation. On other occasions they have gone on to produce happy families because, having lost their first husband, after a period of time they have remarried and the child has taken to the new wedded relationship perfectly happily. That is not unreasonable and seems in many ways, for those people at least, to be a memorial for the man they have lost.
Mrs. Blood is in a very similar situation. Things have gone differently in her case because her husband died extremely suddenly after a short, vicious illness. I do not know, but I think it was rather like the short, vicious illness that is going on at the moment in Cardiff—the attack of very serious meningitis. There was never time for him to give formal written consent because he became comatose. Because he became comatose and did not give written consent, his wife is barred by law from access to her husband's stored sperm. That to my mind is ridiculous.
I say that so strongly because there is the strongest possible evidence that this is what Stephen Blood desired. They were married in accordance with what is now regarded as a rather archaic version of the marriage ceremony—the 1662 version. They wanted to emphasise particularly the procreation of children and the marriage of a couple as of one flesh. Theirs was an extremely strong, loving relationship. There is plenty of evidence, of that.
There is plenty of evidence, which has never been contested, that throughout the marriage the couple discussed children in detail. When it became apparent that they wanted to plan for children they made certain that they were in financial circumstances that would permit children. More importantly, they considered the
804
possibly of infertility treatment. There is evidence, never contested in any way in the High Court during the judicial review, that they discussed in vitro fertilisation and the new technologies in considerable detail. There is further evidence that Mr. Blood explicitly said that he would want his wife to have his child after his death. However, he did not write it down and therefore Mrs. Blood cannot now have access to that treatment. I believe, with complete clarity, that that is the case and I have seen the situation with other people from time to time.
The ban on the use of his semen comes from the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is promoting the ban because it believes that it is implementing the law. I have no quarrel with the regulatory authority. Indeed, I do not want to quarrel with the HFEA. What I want to do is to enhance its purpose. I want to strengthen its purpose. I want it, in the way Parliament intended, to be allowed to use its discretion in these difficult circumstances. That is why I say that the argument that hard cases make bad law is irrelevant.
The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was set up with the good people who run it—people from many different walks of life who have great experience—to decide difficult issues which would be presented to it from time to time. It has done so very successfully. I had personal experience of that with one very controversial case I wanted to treat some time ago, and there are other doctors who have had free access to it. However, one slight fear I have is the risk that if the law is seen to be unnecessarily rigid, doctors might not always be quite so ready to consult the HFEA as they have been in the past. Therefore I want to see the authority helped to come to decisions.
It is worth mentioning that so far as I am aware—perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will correct me if I am wrong—there is no other medical treatment which specifically requires written consent. Even transplantation does not require written consent. I was actually below the Bar in 1990, listening with great attention to the debate. I remember that I wanted to leap over the Bar and join in. As I recall, the concern that Parliament rightly had was that gametes are different, that they are special, and that there is a need to protect them in a particular sort of way.
The basic principle for written consent, as the British Medical Association has just said in an ethical judgment, is that in cases like this it is not written consent, but the quality of consent, which is important. I also have to say that when Parliament considered the issue in 1990 it was not actually concerned with arrangements between husbands and wives together. It was mainly interested in regulating donor gametes, donor sperm and donor eggs and in particular the problems related to embryos. In fact, looking at the report of the Second Reading debate, one sees that the discussion in this Chamber was entirely concerned with embryos.
That is why I want to have this matter discussed. Like the case of Mrs. Blood, there are regularly a few couples each year who are faced with this predicament. I know

805
of two cases in the past six months. One man was undergoing in vitro fertilisation with his wife but had not signed consent for sperm storage. Just before the judicial review he was knocked off his motorbike and declared brain dead in a hospital casualty department. I was rung by the hospital in the south of England, asking for my advice as to whether it should try to get sperm from him. That, incidentally, is a fairly simple technique. It is not a new technology: it has been used for 20 or 25 years. I said that I really felt we should not do that; it would be a hostage to fortune as, until the law was clarified, we could have yet another widow who would be in this agonising position. I said that I thought it was probably better to let nature take its course.
Of course, it is necessary that the HFEA considers each case on its merits. I accept that the wording of this Bill may not be perfect; perhaps I may be given help with that if necessary. There must be an undertaking to look at the express interests of the welfare of the child. There are various objections to my thinking. Some people are naturally concerned that a child should not start off life without a living father: that is certainly an apparent disadvantage. I strongly sympathise with that notion, but there is no practical evidence that children in the right circumstances are genuinely harmed by this. In fact there is plenty of evidence to the reverse. Of course single parent families are not something that we should be attempting to produce: I completely agree. However, we are not talking about the usual nature of deprivation here, bringing social problems. We are talking about an entirely different circumstance. In Mrs. Blood's case, as it happens, she is surrounded by the most loving and supportive family. I think it is particularly impressive that her late husband's family have supported her throughout. When the court case took place in London they came down from Sheffield. They have come down to Parliament on occasions to listen to deliberations in another place. They have continued to support her and will go on doing so in the future. In these circumstances I think there is evidence for saying that such a child could actually be even more cherished and more loved. I do not think that such a child in many circumstances need necessarily remain fatherless indefinitely.
Another objection made to my approach is that Mrs. Blood should never have insemination because her husband did not receive counselling. I argue that the person who needs counselling is not Stephen Blood but his widow, Diane Blood. I believe that to be the general rule for most of these treatments. Of course we never insist on counselling in connection with reproductive treatments. It is something which is offered but is never actually regarded as being mandatory.
Since espousing the case of Mrs. Blood I have had a huge and most remarkable postbag, and I have not had a single letter objecting to what I am doing. I would stress that these are not illiterate letters. They are letters from people like vice-admirals, doctors, clergymen and people who are engaged in important support of our society. They are unanimous in their view. They feel that this is a right and moral thing. Some of them even quote religious views. They rightly observe that
806
Stephen Blood did in fact give a form of written consent when he signed his marriage vows, particularly in the circumstances in which he and his wife were married—the nature of their particularly Christian marriage. Other people have pointed out that implementing her wishes in no way threaten public policy; nor does it threaten the moral fabric of our society.
I have what might be called another interest to refer to. As it happens, I am a practising orthodox Jew. Perhaps this is only slightly relevant, but I am reminded that there is of course biblical precedent. Your Lordships will be aware, for example, of Levirate marriage, clearly stated in Deuteronomy. There is a notion that if a man dies prematurely and his wife is without issue, then she is allowed to marry her late husband's brother because that promotes the generation and preserves her lost husband's name in society. Indeed, in biblical law that child is named after the lost father and not after the brother whom she marries. The wife does not necessarily have to do this but it is an option which is open to her.
Finally, some people claim that this could not have happened without the new reproductive technologies. That is not true. Artificial insemination has been here for 150 years; sperm storage for about 40. Nothing about this is particularly new, and I have personally seen these techniques enhance human happiness rather than decrease it. Many of my overseas colleagues say they cannot understand the problem. In many countries, including much of Europe and parts of the United States of America, such treatment is regarded as being accepted. There have never been many cases. Although it has been available in the United States, very few people have applied for this to be done. I think that is important. Britain has a reputation for enlightened, just and appropriately liberal law, promoting the welfare of its people. I hope that in this case Parliament might try to implement justice if possible. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Winston.)
4.57 p.m.
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Winston, has just explained to your Lordships how this Bill has been occasioned by the case of Mrs. Diane Blood, who is seeking to be artificially inseminated with her late husband's sperm. It is almost impossible not to sympathise with the desire of this woman, so tragically widowed at the age of 30, to bear her husband's child. It is not the purpose of my argument to seek to restrict the practice of artificial insemination by husband but to draw attention to serious practical difficulties with the Bill, some of which have grave ethical implications.
Will the Bill, as it stands, remove the obstacles facing Mrs. Blood? That is very doubtful. It may, but only if it can be established that Mr. Blood gave specific consent and that his consent was not simply inferred or presumed. There is little information available on that point. Only one report of which I am aware, which appeared in The Lancet of 30th November, specifically

807
states that Mr. Blood "agreed" to his sperm being used after his death. All other reports give the impression that his consent has been inferred from his beliefs and comments on posthumous artificial insemination.
The proposed amendment to the law in the noble Lord's Bill does not obviate the requirement for consent. If, however, such an amendment were interpreted by the courts to mean that no specific consent (as opposed to inferred or presumed consent) were required, that would give the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority power to authorise the removal of sperm from men and ova from women without consent or consultation. Nothing in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, or in the noble Lord's Bill, gives the next of kin or any other relative a right to be consulted, to give consent or to stop the removal of gametes from dead or dying relatives.
The Bill also appears to overlook the question of legal paternity. Section 28(6) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act states:
"Where the sperm of a man … was used after his death, he is not to be treated as the father of the child".
The noble Lord's Bill contains no provision to amend that stipulation. It could certainly be most distressing for Mrs. Blood to find that although the courts allowed her to be inseminated after this legislation was passed, her late husband could not be treated as the father of the child.
Furthermore, the Bill makes no provision to obviate the requirements of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act that the donor of sperm of ova,
"must be provided with such relevant information as is proper"
and,
"must be given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling".
Reportedly, Mr. Blood indicated his agreement with posthumous conception after he and Mrs. Blood had read and discussed a magazine article. What was the article in question? Did it leave Mr. Blood well informed or misinformed? Certainly, he did not receive counselling about the implications of what is being proposed. It should not be assumed that to grant a request like that made by Mrs. Blood will not lead to psychological problems for mother or child.
The noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has said that her committee lacked foresight in not anticipating this scenario. However, the Warnock Committee did, in fact, foresee situations where a widow might seek artificial insemination by her husband. The committee said:
"we have grave misgivings about [artificial insemination] in one type of situation. A man who has placed his semen in a semen bank may die and his widow may seek to be inseminated. This may give rise to profound psychological problems for the child and the mother".
The committee recommended that the practice "should be actively discouraged". Whatever one thinks of that conclusion, it should be noted that the man in the imagined scenario, who has placed his semen in a semen bank, would at least have had the information and counselling required by statute, which Mr. Blood unfortunately had not.
5.3 p.m.
Lord McGregor of Durris: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, has recently said:
"I only wish that the law—"
that is, the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, which her committee of 1984 had shaped—
"were a little less rigid. I feel we would have … included a loophole if we'd envisaged the situation".
It seems to me that if we had been able to listen during that Second Reading debate to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, the result might well have been a suggestion that would have made the Act a little less rigid. No committee can envisage all the circumstances which may arise from its proposals. What matters is the present situation and the fact that the law has been obeyed and the relevant medical ethics observed. We have the assurance of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, on that. There is wide recognition that the law should be adjusted along the lines suggested by the amendment Bill which the noble Lord has brought forward.
I do not intend to take up the time of the House by speaking of the details. I am not a doctor and I am not a lawyer, but I feel strongly that this is a subject on which lay persons ought to testify. In my opinion, Mrs. Blood's difficulties, and those of others who may face similar situations as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Winston, should be resolved by the proposal to change the Act. The noble Lord has wholly persuaded me that there can be fundamental injustices under the present Act. It seems to me that all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, could be dealt with by amendments in Committee. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Cumberlege, will give us some hope of government sympathy for the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winston.
In conclusion, perhaps I may make one point about the nature of discussion in a democracy. The very basis of a discussion of issues of public policy in a democracy is that we must observe the discipline of tolerance and avoid extremes of language which distort and degrade communication among citizens. I was shocked to read in last week's Sunday Times an assertion given quotation marks by the newspaper that Professor Scarisbrick of Warwick University, chairman of Life, had said that the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock,
"is a very evil and pernicious influence".
Such language among citizens drags the consideration of public policy into the gutter, quite apart from providing Professor Scarisbrick's students with a repulsive model of intellectual discourse. It is a fact that some people, when discussing these problems and occasionally unable to control their repugnance for the issues, degrade the discussion and make rational solutions to the sorts of issues which the noble Lord, Lord Winston, put before us, nearly impossible. I hope that when we hear or read comments made by persons representing bodies with such views, we shall make the most vigorous protests and do everything we can to keep alive the possibility of rational discussion.
5.9 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, like other noble Lords, I very much sympathise with Mrs. Blood over the death of her husband and can understand her strong desire to have their child. I am also aware of the distinguished work of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and of how he has helped so many to conceive and bear children. Indeed, I was at a dinner party only a few days ago at which my hostess said that the noble Lord was one of her heroes.
In this Bill, the noble Lord is of course trying to help people in the position of Mrs. Blood—and it would be good to do that if we could. But we are dealing with legislation which by its nature affects many, not just a few. It has intended and unintended consequences and desirable and undesirable consequences. As I understand it, the question is whether legislation can be drawn up that is tight enough to help people in the position of Mrs. Blood without setting up a whole train of unintended and undesirable effects. It is not difficult to foresee a whole range of agonising predicaments that could arise from the wording of the amendment before us.
Every year thousands of young men die, a very high percentage of them in car accidents. About one in every thousand males between the ages of 16 and 39 dies every year. I understand that in 1994, 125,000 car driver casualties alone occurred and they included people of both sexes. One can envisage a situation in which a couple are very much in love. Perhaps they have lived together for two or three years. Tragically, the man is killed in a car crash. His fiancee desperately wants something of their love to go on into the future. He is an only son and his parents have longed for the time when they have grandchildren. If the law allowed it, there would be huge emotional pressure to extract sperm from him as he lay unconscious on a life-support machine or even when he was dead. As the law stands, for that to happen effective consent must be given. According to Schedule 3 to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act, a person who contemplates that step must be given an opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of taking it and must be provided with such relevant information as is proper. Furthermore, that consent must be in writing.
Consent is a crucial concept in both medical practice and medical ethics. Religious faith, particularly in its Jewish and Christian forms, underlines the importance of this. First, it is an expression and safeguard of the dignity due to the individual human being whether alive, dying or dead. One does not violate the body unless the individual agrees to the procedures involved. One respects his person, especially in the vulnerable stage of dying or death. Secondly, consent is an expression of respect for the individual's free choice. Even if one disagrees with the choice, it is a fundamental facet of what it is to be a human being that choice exists and the individual must be allowed freely to make it. Therefore, it is right to encourage people to make informed, mature choices, taking into account all the consequences they can foresee, as the 1990 Act lays down.
The Medical Ethics Committee of the British Medical Association has said that it accepts the principle behind the amendment before us that consent need not be in
810
writing. The noble Lord, Lord Winston, has reminded us of that. But what that committee is concerned about, as I am, is the quality of consent and what would count as evidence of it if consent in writing was not mandatory. One cannot simply assume that because a couple were married or in love and that in normal circumstances they would have wanted to have children they would both want a child that they knew would be born and brought up without a father.
It is not romantic or sentimental to think of a man, close to death, not wanting his wife to have their child, for her sake. Because their love is true and deep, he also wants to leave her free to make fresh relationships in the course of time and to have children who can have a father. Although she may say—and probably would say out of love for him—that she wants to bear their child, even though shortly he will be dead, he out of his very love for his wife or girlfriend may be unwilling to give that consent. If there has been no opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of taking the proposed step, if he has not been provided with relevant information, as the Act at present states, and if there is no consent in writing, we simply do not know. If the couple have talked it through and, aware of what he is doing, the man has put his consent in writing, we then know what he wants. But if there is nothing in writing, how do we have access to his mind and on what basis can one discriminate between serious claims, on the one hand, and unfounded and rather thin claims, on the other, that he wanted his wife or girlfriend to bear their child when he was dead?
A great many young men die every year and leave a great number of grieving wives, girlfriends and parents. It would be entirely understandable if a high percentage of them wanted to carry something of the person they loved into the future in the form of their child, if the law allowed it. But in the absence of written consent and serious prior discussion, it is difficult to see what would count for and, no less important, what would count against the assertion that consent had indeed been given. There would be grave danger of the concept of consent being evacuated of all meaning in such circumstances, for a woman who was desperate enough would allow nothing to count against the notion that consent had been given by the man she loved.
As the law stands, the clinical judgment that was made to remove sperm from a dying or clinically brain dead man was, as I understand it, a mistake, if not explicitly illegal, and would be unlikely to be repeated. If the law is amended in accordance with the proposals in this Bill, clinicians may feel obliged to store sperm in case appeals were made later based on the notion that consent need not in every case be in writing and they would be blamed if such sperm was not available. To protect themselves from possible legal action in future they would need to err on the side of caution and take sperm if there was any possibility of a loved one wanting it. But that would place many more people in the distress in which Mrs. Blood now finds herself. She is in particular anguish, not only because of the death of her husband but because, sperm having been taken from

811
his body, there is a possibility of conceiving their child. That may be what Mr. Blood would have wanted but we cannot know for certain.
Do we really want hundreds, if not thousands, of women to be placed in that anguished position? Furthermore, there would be two consequences if they were. The first concerns the role of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. It is difficult to see how it could possibly adjudicate in all these cases. Secondly, if its authority was to continue to be a real authority, it is likely that there would be a significant number of requests that it would refuse. So the distressed relative would have the further anguish that the possibility of bearing a child by the person they loved was extinguished by a human decision which many would find very difficult to accept with equanimity.
Researchers in America have found that a number of fertility clinics in the United States and Canada take sperm from dead men at the request of their partners or families. This is possible in the United States because the law concerning the extraction and use of sperm from cadavers is unclear. The researchers would like American legislators to introduce specific controls on the use of sperm samples as in current British law. The relative clarity of British law at the moment is a great strength and avoids much anguish that would ensue if it were changed.
I am sure that all noble Lords are aware that this is a difficult issue. I shall be listening with great attention to any wisdom that others may be able to offer, as I listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and his deeply passionate and compassionate eloquence. But, while I am sympathetic to trying to help people in the position of Mrs. Blood, I believe that the present wording of the Bill gives rise to grave difficulties that need to be taken into account. For the reasons that I have sketched out, informed consent is fundamental to medical practice and ethics, especially when genetic material is involved. I should not want to see that consent in any way weakened, let alone evacuated of any real meaning. Furthermore, the relative clarity of the present law should prevent more people being put into Mrs. Blood's position, with all its ensuing anguish. The law can sometimes seem impersonal or hard. But keeping that clarity, so far as we can in this highly complex area, serves human welfare and human well-being.
5.20 p.m.
Lord Clyde: My Lords, I rise with all the hesitation of one who has not before had the opportunity of addressing your Lordships' House. I crave your Lordships' indulgence to bear with me with greater confidence when I am conscious that this House is remarkable for the kindness which it demonstrates to those who come here for the first time. Indeed, I suspect that the principal impression which any new arrival has and remembers when entering this part of the Palace is the outstanding civility, kindness and warmth of welcome that he or she receives, not only from the Members of your Lordships' House but from every member and every officer who serves in this building.
812
I come from a family which, according to the heralds, is unorganised. It is legitimate, but it is also legal. Lawyers rejoice in controversy. Having been brought up in a legal household, and having spent my life in the practice of the law, I find it then difficult to discover myself constrained by the rules which quite properly apply to the speech which I must make on this occasion—the rule that requires me not to be controversial. I can only hope that what little I have to offer may not sound simply platitudinous, trivial or dull.
The Bill is admirably brief. I have an anxiety, which I think has already been expressed, that it may be too brief, but it seeks to right a perceived wrong—a wrong which the courts themselves have considered they cannot correct. It seeks to do it by introducing a flexible solution, giving the decision to be made in each case to the authority itself. That will of course be necessarily, in many cases, a hard decision, and it will require to be made on the basis and in the light of the whole evidence which is presented to it. I have no doubt that the authority, already in its history, has been required to make hard decisions, and this may be one which would be within its competence.
Once it is accepted that reproduction can be permitted by artificial means, then is this extending developments unreasonably? So far as concerns the result, there are, and of course can be, cases where the natural father may die before the birth of his child. My concern and interest here would be for the welfare of the child. That is, I confess, the justification which I have for presuming to open my mouth on this subject. When I see that the authority is required to consider, among other things, the welfare of the child, then my mind is substantially set at rest.
There are just two observations which I seek to make about the Bill. This is of course a matter of considerable delicacy and sensitivity. One can understand why, when the Act was passed, it was conceived appropriate that the critical consent should be in writing. A consent is needed for a licence to be given. No alteration is being made to that principle. A consent is still required.
I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Winston, making observations about the reasons for the requirement for writing. I had imagined that at least one of the purposes would be that there would be available then a clear written document which would avoid any room for dispute or doubt about whether a consent had been given. It would serve as evidence of that critical ingredient. If that is part of the reasoning, then perhaps one should not depart lightly from that requirement for writing; but if one is to depart, then I would hope that there would be available some written record of the consent which has been given, albeit given not in writing. That could perhaps be done by the authority keeping the matter as one of written record, perhaps in its register of information or by some other way. However it be done, it would seem to me desirable that there should be written evidence available to establish, either if there were dispute in the present or in the future, that the consent had been given.

813
The other matter which I would seek to raise is that the amendment has been prompted by one particular situation. One can conceive—as indeed the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said—that there can be other cases. I could not conceive that this would give rise, if it be passed, to any widespread increase in the number of cases which would come into its fold.
There are, it must be remembered, requirements other than writing for the consent, as the Act stands at present. As has already been mentioned, under Schedule 3 there is the requirement for proper counselling about the implications of the consent before it is given. That will still stand. There is the requirement that all proper information must be given to the person before the consent is given. There must also be information given to the person about the opportunities for variation or withdrawal.
If those provisions stand, it might well be thought that would give a fair indication that there has been a considered consent. It is, and would be, for the authority to be satisfied on that. If it is satisfied with those details, it may well be satisfied that the consent is a considered, conscious and deliberate one. It does not then seem to me that this amendment will open any wide door which would cause alarm, or breach any great principle so as to cause concern. The occasions upon which all these pre-conditions would be met would not, I suspect, be many.
In those few observations I have sought to avoid controversy. I would commend the proposal. I close by thanking your Lordships for the patience with which you have heard me. I shall look forward to an opportunity in the future when I may speak on a matter of greater controversy—of course still observing all due propriety and restraint.
5.28 p.m.
Lord Moyne: My Lords, I must first apologise for missing the start of the debate. I did so owing to a miscalculation of the time that the Business of the House would take, combined with transport difficulties. I hope that the House will forgive me. It is a particular pleasure to follow the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, whose maiden speech was as distinguished as one would expect from someone with a legal career and whose reasoning was both close and humane. I believe that he will be a considerable ornament to this House.
My remarks will not take long. I feel strongly that the Bill ought to pass. I do not understand the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford with numbers. I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, and do not envisage there being a great problem. However, if there were a problem the answer may be that if something is just for one person it is just for many.
It is strange how much attention is being given to the issue of consent. Surely the very marriage service of the Church of England tells us that one important purpose of marriage is procreation. The fact that the deceased husband married the wife is implied consent in about as strong a fashion as one can imagine.
814
If, as some people have said, the grounds for objection are that the procedure might result in too many lone parent families there are two important answers. First, a lone parent who has taken the trouble to obtain fertilisation by her dead husband shows a devotion which is likely to recur in her devotion to the child. Secondly, there is absolutely nothing to prevent such a person getting married again when the period of mourning is over. In that case, there would be a two-parent family. Therefore, that cannot be an objection.
I also see a close parallel between the case of Mrs. Blood and that of a pregnant woman whose husband is unfortunately killed in a car crash. Should such a woman have an abortion? I should like noble Lords to think that matter over.
5.32 p.m.
Lord Habgood: My Lords, a large part of me wishes that I could support the Bill. It is compassionate; it is designed to help a few tragic individuals; it seems strictly limited in intent; and it is the kind of Bill which immediately arouses popular sympathy. Nevertheless, I believe that it would be a mistake to change the present stringent conditions for consent, despite the fact that such cases were not envisaged when the present legislation was drawn up, as the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, reminded us.
I see two reasons for being cautious. The first concerns an issue that has been mentioned; namely, the well-being of children. The second has not yet been mentioned. It is the way in which our society understands death. The first reason for caution, which is centred on children and single parenthood, has been much discussed, particularly during our long debates on the Family Law Bill. Unfortunately, public debate on this issue frequently confuses two quite different considerations. I am afraid that our debate tonight is no exception.
One of those considerations is whether we accept the two-parent family as the ideal. If we do, it follows that we ought, in so far as possible, to avoid legislation which implies that in certain, perhaps special, circumstances it is acceptable deliberately to create a one-parent family. I stress the phrase "deliberately to create". I am not talking about misadventures; I am talking about policy. Do we want to encourage the creation of one-parent families or do we not?
The noble Lord, Lord Winston, in his opening speech, interestingly referred to the Jewish practice of Levirate marriages, which one might say was a scriptural precedent for regarding death as a particular exception to this rule. The fact is that Levirate marriages were extremely complicated and raised all kinds of problems. For very good reasons, nobody now thinks of them. Therefore, I am afraid that that was not a strong argument.
The clear policy decision of what we want to say about marriages is frequently muddled up with a completely different issue of how single parents should actually be treated. It is urged in favour of legislation that would tend to create single parents that single

815
parents may do a marvellous job; that the children of single parents may develop perfectly normally; that most of those who become single parents are such without wishing to be; and that in any case we should do nothing to denigrate single parenthood or fail to support those who find themselves in that position. Quite so—I agree entirely. But these considerations do not invalidate the ideal nor should they determine decisions about basic policy. These latter considerations are practical issues about helping people to deal with a less than ideal situation.
Therefore, my first point in relation to the Bill is that although the circumstances of some individuals may undoubtedly be tragic it would not be wise to pass legislation which would, however marginally, reinforce the tendency to believe that single parenthood is nothing but one option among others and may be deliberately encouraged by legislative provision.
My second reason for caution about the Bill concerns the way in which our society is beginning to think about death. I want to question the wisdom of trying to push out still further the boundaries of death. In saying that, I am in no way criticising the enormous success which the medical profession has had in defying and postponing death. What worry me are the pressures to deny death or to circumvent it, even when the person involved is clinically dead. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford told us, there are strong pressures of that kind in the United States. There in some clinics sperm is routinely taken from dead men at the request of their partners and families. It is not known whether they have been used for fertilisation, but whether they have or not—and why else would sperm be taken?—there is clearly a danger of moving into a macabre kind of culture in which the dead are clung to as though their potency was still somehow alive.
Admittedly, that possibility is already with us, given the practice of freezing gametes and embryos when proper consent has been granted. I must confess that I do not like this part of our present law, but at least proper consent for it is safeguarded by some clear, precise and relatively high hurdles. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford eloquently argued, it would be a great mistake to confuse that clarity and lower those hurdles even in such a modest fashion as is proposed in the Bill.
Nor do I take the argument that marriage by its very nature implies consent. It is simply not true. The Church might wish it were true when it says that one of the aims of procreation is marriage—
Noble Lords: No, no. The other way round!
Lord Habgood: My Lords, thank you. I am getting carried away. The Church might wish it were true when it says that one of the aims of marriage is procreation. Indeed, in an earlier famous report on the family in 1958, the Bishops of the Anglican Communion said that procreation ought always to be a possibility in every marriage, even though contraception was allowed. But we know perfectly well that in our present society, that is no longer the case. There are many people who either
816
do not want to have children now or do not want to at all, even though they have taken their marriage vows.
It seems to me that if experience in the United States is any guide, there certainly will be further pressures on relaxation. There will be a succession of tragic cases, each of which pushes out the boundaries a little bit further. The HFE authority will find that its discretionary powers contain no clear guidance about where to draw the line.
It has been mentioned already that there is an irony in the whole situation in that legally, although not emotionally, death dissolves a marriage. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, post-mortem conception would, technically speaking, result in an illegitimate child. I know that it would not feel as though it were illegitimate or be treated as such but that point illustrates the kind of legal as well as emotional tangles which are likely to occur as soon as we start to tamper still further with the boundaries of death and the more our procedures imply that the dead are not truly dead.
Doctors can do wonderful things in preserving the living. But I hope that we shall not let them persuade us into still further attempts to preserve the potency of the dead. I am one of those who believe that death is not the end. Because I believe that, I believe that we must let the dead go in order to find them again. That is why my Christian conviction works in this instance against the attractions of immediate compassion.
5.42 p.m.
Lord Kilbracken: My Lords, I congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, on his maiden speech and my noble friend Lord Winston on his maiden Bill in this House. I wish him well with it and hope that it will quickly reach the statute book, although it may need some work in the Committee.
There are one or two small matters on which I cannot help but feel apprehensive; and I hope that my noble friend will be able to reassure me. He has reassured me to the extent that I have already crossed out about half of the remarks which I intended to make because he has given me explanations.
However, I begin by drawing attention, as did the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, the right reverend Prelate and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, to paragraph 3(1) of Schedule 3 of the Act which states:
"Before a person gives consent under this Schedule … (a) he must he given a suitable opportunity to receive proper counselling about the implications of taking the proposed steps, and (b) he must be provided with such relevant information as is proper".
That section still remains in force. If a donor has died, his consent is still required although under the amendment, it need not be written consent. Therefore, it appears to me that that paragraph would remain applicable, despite the amendment, and it would not be possible to comply with it. Therefore, further amendment to the Bill appears to be necessary.
Secondly, many noble Lords have expressed great concern about the welfare of the child, which I believe we all agree should be of paramount importance. My noble friend emphasises that by including it as one of

817
the circumstances which the authority must take into account. It may be no more than a drafting point but I wonder whether it is necessary to state that in the amendment because Section 13(5) of the Act states:
"A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may be born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may be affected by the birth".
In other words, it seems to me that the welfare of the child is already taken care of in the Act.
The case of Mr. and Mrs. Blood has been mentioned already by numerous noble Lords and therefore I feel no compunction about referring to them by name. However, perhaps my noble friend will give us some more information about their case. We know that the couple had been married, happily we believe, for a considerable period—seven or eight years—and yet no children resulted. Will my noble friend tell us why there was reason to hope that artificial methods might be effective despite the failure of normal intercourse and/or assisted intercourse, if I may so call it, assuming that that has been used?
As it is, any resultant child would inevitably suffer the extremely serious handicap—and I believe it to be a serious handicap—of never having a father. The mother's expectations of remarrying if, in the fullness of time, she wished to do so, could only be diminished. There are cons as well as pros in the case.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, not least for bringing this difficult and sensitive issue to debate today based upon the Bill which he has introduced into your Lordships' House. I wish to join in congratulating my noble and learned friend Lord Clyde on his quite outstandingly persuasive and thoughtful maiden speech. I trust that we shall hear from him on many more occasions.
In a lifetime of medical practice, I have become increasingly aware of the fact that medical ethical problems continue to develop and emerge. They are ethical problems which one had never considered as likely to arise when one thought about certain specific situations. I was involved personally to a considerable extent in many of the debates in your Lordships' House on the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill some years ago. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. I too thought that the situation which is the subject of our debate today was one that I personally did not envisage as being likely to arise.
Having said that, I am sure that there can be no question that, under the law as it stands at present and under the Bill which became an Act when it finally received Royal Assent, the courts had no alternative but to refuse to Mrs. Blood the use of the sperm taken from her dead husband because that Act is quite explicit in saying that in such circumstances involving issues of human fertilisation, embryology, in vitro fertilisation and artificial insemination, the written consent of both partners is required.
818
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, informed consent is at the core of medical practice. When a doctor and a patient meet, it is the doctor's duty and responsibility to advise that patient what measures he or she feels are appropriate to the management of the patient's condition. But it is up to the patient to determine whether or not that advice is accepted. However, there are few circumstances when that informed consent has to be given in writing. It has become a convention—this was referred to in passing by the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Habgood,—that in the case of an individual who is assessed by medical expertise as being brain dead, it is proper for the next of kin of that individual, after considering all the relevant circumstances, to give permission for the respirator to be turned off and to allow the patient's heart to stop shortly afterwards. In those circumstances, subject to the advice and permission of the next of kin, it has then been accepted conventionally that it is proper to remove organs, for example the cornea, the kidneys, the heart and lungs, for transplantation. Of course, many individuals in the world today and in this country carry with them cards which give a clear indication that they wish, should they die, for their organs to be removed for transplantation purposes if the organs are regarded as suitable for that.
I understand from today's debate that it is the legal interpretation of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act that the informed consent of the next of kin may not extend to the removal of gametes, either sperm from the reproductive tract of the male or ova from the female. I should wish to be sure that that is the legal advice which our lawyers have given, and that the Minister can confirm that is the case. I am not certain that my interpretation or reading of the Act is correct in that regard, but I am not a lawyer. It is important that that point should be clarified.
However, it has also been a strong convention that any operations upon the reproductive organs of male or female, including vasectomy in the male or sterilisation in the female, must be carried out only with the consent of both parties. That, I hope, we totally accept. However, my understanding is that no one ever requires a man presenting himself for vasectomy to give that consent in writing. I believe that a woman is perfectly entitled to give consent to sterilisation, once the partner or husband has given that consent, without it being in writing. Those other issues have become a common part of medical practice. It is therefore important that we should consider carefully whether it is right and proper, in the light of all these circumstances, to seek to amend the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in order to allow—as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, suggested in his opening speech—that gametes removed after death from a male or female subject might subsequently be used with the consent of the other partner. Of course in the future—who knows?—people may be asked to include in the cards they carry offering the right to transplant their organs a provision for transplantation of material from their reproductive organs. That is not feasible at the moment, but it may well occur in the future.

819
This amendment is carefully and sensitively phrased. I share the views of the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, on the crucial importance of marriage and the family. Nevertheless, I accept that there are special and specific circumstances in which it is proper for the welfare of the child to be born that a single parent may be allowed to have a child. I believe this should be the exception rather than the rule. The amendment before us gives authority to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority in specific and special circumstances to give permission, which need not be in writing provided it is the wish of the other partner in such a relationship, for artificial insemination using for example, as in the case of Mrs. Blood, the sperm taken from her dead husband.
On another issue entirely, I had the privilege of being the Chairman of the Select Committee on Medical Ethics in your Lordships' House. Among other issues, we considered the role of advance directives. We also considered a principle of substituted judgment. Is that a principle—which of course is not hallowed in law, but nevertheless has in many circumstances been hallowed in practice—that consent, which may not necessarily be given in writing, can be given by one individual, such as the next of kin, based upon the views of the dead partner or the incompetent partner expressed during life, or at a time when they were competent, upon what they would have wished to see happen to them if they became incompetent, or, subsequently, if they were no longer alive? This is a situation in which that issue of substituted judgment should be carefully considered.
The principle underlying this amendment—bearing in mind the crucial importance of the welfare of any child to be born if this procedure were to be allowed—is one that I would wish to support and commend to your Lordships' House. I accept that there may well be technical and legal problems. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashbourne, said, some amendment may be necessary to this Bill if it is to become law. However, I do not believe that it is beyond the wisdom and authority of your Lordships' House to see that this particular problem is dealt with effectively and sensitively, as the noble Lord, Lord Winston, would wish.
5.57 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, the report of the committee chaired by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was properly cautious about posthumous insemination and pregnancy. The report stated at paragraph 4.4 that a man who has placed semen in a semen bank may die and his widow may then seek to be inseminated. This may give rise to profound psychological problems for the child and the mother. The report states at paragraph 10.9 that the use by a widow of her dead husband's semen for AIH is a practice which we feel should be actively discouraged. Despite our own views in this matter we realise that such requests may occasionally be made. It is obviously essential that there should be some finality for those administering estates of deceased persons since in such cases posthumous fertilisation could cause real problems of inheritance and succession. Account would have to be taken of issue who might be born years after the death.
820
In the White Paper of 1987 at paragraph 59 the Government shared those sentiments. However, it is significant that the Government declined to prohibit by law a widow attempting to have a child by use of sperm or embryo stored before her husband's death. However, the discussion in the Warnock Report and in the White Paper did not really consider the question in the context of the requirement of effective consent which became an important part of the legislation which was enacted in 1990.
At the Committee stage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill, as it then was, on 8th February 1990 I moved an amendment concerning embryos which proposed that consent as to future use and storage should cease to be effective in the event of one of the persons giving consent suffering death or legal incapacity. That amendment sought to give effect to paragraphs 10.11 to 10.13 of the Warnock Report, which were concerned with embryos rather than gametes. The noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor responded to that amendment by pointing out that effective consent could extend to the use of embryos after death. That debate was more particularly concerned with embryos; this amending Bill is concerned primarily with gametes.
If the Bill is passed, it will be entirely consistent with the intention of 1990 Act that there must be effective consent and that such consent could extend beyond death. The child produced will still be produced as the result of the considered decision of two living, competent adults exercising the basic right to found a family. The Bill addresses the situation whereby what intervenes to defeat that decision is not infertility but the supervening death or incapacity of one of the parents. The Bill will simply mean that the absence of written consent alone will not frustrate that considered decision. The purposes for which consent is required will still be met by the unwritten consent—the purposes being to ensure the lawfulness of the treatment provided and to avoid evidential difficulty in establishing parentage.
There may well be a stronger case for requiring writing where it is the gametes of a third party that are to be used. But in the case of a married couple it is surely absurd to make the requirement of writing a means of defeating their agreed intentions. It is ironic that a third party's posthumous donation would be all right provided it was in writing.
I do not see the Bill as opening any sort of floodgate. One has only to look at its terms. First, the authority will retain a duty and a discretion to decide whether it is reasonable in all the circumstances to waive the requirement of written consent. Secondly, and importantly, there must still be reliable evidence of consent. There may be only a few cases where there is sufficient evidence of consent. Consent is not the same as acquiescence. Consent will not be inferred where the evidence amounts to no more than an indication that the deceased did not object or would not have objected. Those points were made in a slightly different way by the right reverend Prelate, the Bishop of Oxford. However, with respect to him, I suggest that it is perhaps wrong to prejudge the quality of the evidence in the

821
particular case of Mrs. Blood or to predict the outcome of her case if the Bill was in fact law. Indeed, her case is still sub judice.
The further point to remember is that there is Section 13(5) of the 1990 Act, about which a very great deal has been written and said, not all of it entirely complimentary. Section 13(5) of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 requires clinics which offer assisted reproduction, before offering treatment to a woman, to take account,
"of the welfare of any child who may be horn as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may he affected by the birth".
That allows, indeed requires, consideration of the suitability of the proposed parent. It may be that, in the situation that we are considering and if the Bill is enacted, those considerations will be more difficult in the case of supervening incapacity than in the case of death.
People in the situation faced by Mrs. Blood and others who may come after her face enough obstacles. As a widow, she is not barred from conceiving a child by another man whom she never sees again. She is not barred as a single person from seeking adoption. This Bill seems to provide a modest improvement to the law to meet a situation that was not entirely foreseen in 1990 and to deal with it in the context of the 1990 Act. To prevent the Bill becoming law would allow there to continue to be unnecessary regulation of husbands and wives.
The concern of the BMA is a proper concern. It has been echoed by previous speakers this evening. It is that not only is there a requirement for consent, but there is a requirement for counselling. I hope that whether in the form of this Bill, or in guidance to the authority, there will be situations provided for to allow flexibility so that not only the requirement for written consent is waived but also the requirement for formal counselling. I hope that the Bill passes into law, and as quickly as possible.
6.6 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, and to the House generally for my late arrival. Unfortunately I was out of town on MENCAP business and the weight of traffic held me back. For once I was glad to be a later speaker.
I wish to support the noble Lord, Lord Winston, simply because I agree with him. I have no expertise in this area, and neither my former profession nor my role in MENCAP gives me any standing in this delicate personal issue.
I recognise the hazards in proposals for legislation which might seem to be of the "town clerk's pension Bill" kind in so far as they relate to the circumstances of a particular case and the interests of a particular person. However, the noble Lord's modest Bill is clear in its purpose and does not threaten wider repercussions of a kind not intended by the draftsman. Moreover, it contains all those safeguards for which one might look in this sensitive area: the requirement of "reasonableness in all the circumstances"; and the test of "the welfare of
822
the child" that might result. Moreover, the underlying concept is still one of consent. What is waived, in exceptional circumstances, is a requirement for written consent.
Since the noble Lord and others bring expertise, I am content to argue this matter from a lay point of view. As I see it, we are concerned to secure, as the frontiers of scientific possibility are shifted, that science is kept in touch with nature. Given what is theoretically possible either already or at some future date, we want to keep as close as we can to the ideal of a child being born as a result of a loving relationship between a man and a woman, and subsequently nurtured by that man and that woman.
I shall not be side-tracked into exploring the naturalness or otherwise of the huge range of other possible relationships and situations, or indeed into the equally controversial area of the relative priority between spending money on helping people to have babies where they might not otherwise have them, as opposed to spending money on sustaining life and improving the quality of life. I want to focus on the simple issue of a woman, now a widow, wanting to have her husband's child. As a family man, whose marriage has been a long and happy one (despite all the hazards of "theatrical marriages"), I can empathise with someone whose marriage was cut short but who wants to fill a void with her husband's child. That does not seem to me to be unreasonable, or unnatural, even though it has only recently been made medically possible.
I do not know whether your Lordships are well versed in the Book of Ecclesiasticus in the Jerusalem Bible, but those who are (certainly the right reverend Prelates on the Bishops' Benches) will recall Chapter 30, verse 4:
"Even when the father dies, he might well not be dead. if he leaves his likeness behind him".
Surely we cannot deny the late Stephen Blood that vision of immortality.
6.9 p.m.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I wish to support the modest proposal contained in the Bill. Your Lordships have heard that there are, and may in future be, a few cases where the provision of joint written consent for the use of sperm by a recent widow has been made impossible by the sudden incapacity of the husband before his death. However, all the circumstances suggest that it would have been his wish that a posthumous child should be born.
I wish in some degree to put the record straight about the deliberations of the committee of inquiry, which reported in 1984. The report was largely incorporated in the 1990 legislation. That committee considered the possibility of the posthumous use of frozen sperm by a widow and decided that, while its use should not be encouraged, within certain time constraints it should not be prohibited. We in the committee advised that written consent from both parties should have been obtained, because we had in mind a particular case where a couple would be treated together as a couple where they might wish sperm to be frozen before surgery in case the

823
husband either became infertile or died. The husband and wife were treated together as a couple in such a case.
We did not consider the case of a man who fell ill unexpectedly and from whom sperm might still be obtained during his illness. We did not know of any such procedure at that time, although I believe that it existed. However, I deeply regret now that we did not consider it. If we had, our attitude to a posthumous birth would probably have been the same: namely, that it should not he actively encouraged but, more important, it should not be a criminal offence. I believe that we would have seen the argument for sometimes waiving the written consent requirement, provided that the other requirements were satisfied, especially the general requirement already in the Act that the good of the potential child should he paramount.
A great deal has been made, rather to my surprise, of the second condition that would not be able to be fulfilled in the case of the sudden and unexpected death. That is the condition of counselling. I have a block about the necessity for counselling. The words of the committee of inquiry which were later incorporated into the Bill would never have been my words. People forget that the chairman does not write the report but sometimes has to go along with the views of other members of the committee.
I would regard counselling as desirable perhaps in some cases, but the notion that it should be mandatory to counsel someone who wanted to lay down in writing that he would like to have a posthumous child, should the situation ever arise; or that he should be counselled when, in conversation with his wife, he said that he would like to have a posthumous child if the situation arose, seems to me bizarre. I hope that too much would not be made of the absence of counselling in the case of someone who died unexpectedly and in an unforeseen way.
But, lying behind the details of the arguments about the Bill, somewhere there lurks the feeling that it could never be in the interests of a child to be conceived after the death of its father. I find that proposition difficult to articulate because the child does not yet exist, so it does not have an interest. However, noble Lords will understand what I mean in saying that there are people who think that for a child to be conceived after the death of the father must always be a disaster.
The issue here is not whether that conception is a good or an evil. It is whether such a conception can be permitted without the written consent of the parents. That is why I speak of the objection to posthumous children lying behind the arguments that turn specifically on the question of consent and counselling. I cannot believe that anyone supposes that any posthumous birth is immoral. Being a posthumous child myself, I probably would not think that a posthumous birth was immoral. Therefore, I believe that there is no intrinsic reason why an "assisted" posthumous birth—one that would not have been able to take place before the freezing of sperm was possible—should be intrinsically immoral, if a posthumous birth itself is not immoral.
825
The supposition that it is particularly bad deliberately to bring into the world a posthumous child carries the implication that there is something wrong with posthumous children. Otherwise, I cannot see what the difference is between allowing that posthumous children may be born and deliberately assisting the birth of a posthumous child. That is the point at which I find it difficult to follow the argument. It would be a natural consequence that if one believed that posthumous children should not be allowed, it would follow that a mother who was pregnant with a child when her husband died should be counselled in order to ascertain whether she would like an abortion.
I believe that there is nothing special about the deliberate bringing into existence of a posthumous child, nothing especially dangerous or wrong with that deliberateness, provided that the child will be born, if it is born, in favourable circumstances. I do not believe that we ought to accept the presupposition that being the child of a single parent is the worst fate that can befall a child and therefore it cannot be right deliberately to cause such a child to be born. Once again, we must notice that to cause such a child to be born is already permitted in law. The sole issue is whether written consent and counselling has been obtained.
It is difficult to predict how his life will be when the child is born. The father who gives consent to the posthumous child by the use of his sperm, should he die, must guess that it will be all right for the child. It cannot be more than a guess. But we would all agree that the most important points for a child are, to quote Tennyson, that he should be the object of admiration, hope and love. There are many cases where that is the kind of environment in which a posthumous child may grow up. His father, though not present, will be held up to him as an object of love. The father will not be the visible and existing father that everyone would wish; but the child will be the visible and existing sign of the love that his parents bore towards each other. That is the essential of the family. The child will be the hope for the foreseeable future.
I argue that if those circumstances seem to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority likely to surround the child, if he is born, then it should have the power to allow the insemination of the widow, within the existing legal time limits, even though there is no joint written consent and there has been no counselling. The authority will be guessing about the good of the child and it will doubtless be cautious in using its power. But, as I have suggested, guesswork about a child's future is not at all uncommon.
Finally, having argued that there is nothing intrinsically immoral in permitting and indeed assisting in the birth of a posthumous child, I also argue that in the Bill there is nothing that would set public policy in a new undesirable direction. Here I should like to take the opportunity to say that I agree with what was said in the maiden speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, to which I listened with enormous admiration. I agree that this is not a public policy issue. I must regretfully disagree with the noble and reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, who suggested that if we allowed this Bill to go through we would signal a belief that one

825
parent was as good as two parents. I feel that if anything this Bill, if passed, would be a signal of our belief in the power of love in looking after a child in a family rather than that one parent is as good as two.
I do not believe that there would be a great rush of new cases to come before the authority. I suppose it goes without saying that no one would choose to have a posthumous child from frozen sperm rather than have a child in the ordinary way with the father still alive. I do not believe that the number of cases likely to arise, and certainly not the number of cases likely to satisfy all the criteria that the authority would have to use, would be very great.
So I believe that there is no moral objection to allowing this slight flexibility in the powers of the authority, nor do I think that it constitutes a public policy issue. For those reasons, I very strongly support the Bill.
6.21 p.m.
Lord Kennet: My Lords, I speak in the gap and do so reluctantly because I had hoped that my point would have been made earlier. As it has not been made, I take a moment or two to detain your Lordships with it. It concerns the position of the HFEA in this amending Bill.
The Bill has been precipitated by an extremely famous case, described most eloquently by my noble friend Lord Winston. It is known to the entire British people, and widely abroad. I believe that there is nobody present who would not wish that the law should permit Mrs. Blood to have the child that she desires. However, the Bill will not only affect the Mrs. Bloods of this world. It will affect a very large class of persons, the probity, the veracity, and so on, of whom will vary widely.
Let us consider the enormous spread of people concerned. To begin with, the Bill affects women as well as men. It affects donated ova and, if they are to be used for procreation, that automatically involves three people at once; namely, one dead party and two living parties. That is considerably more complicated than the case we have been considering so far of two people: one man and one woman. I confess that I have not had the time to think through the ethical ramifications of that. However, the HFEA would be required under the Bill to think out the ethical ramifications, and it might be that the evidence would be contested in easily imagined and very complicated ways.
I was struck by what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said about young men in car crashes at night. Young men do drive about rashly late at night. Typically they are young men who have not yet had families and who look forward to having families. Typically also they are young men who have girlfriends or young wives. Let us imagine a case in which such a young man is killed and his wife is present or arrives on the scene immediately, calls for a doctor and says, "Quick, quick, we need the sperm." Those are unpleasant imaginings but the law is the law. My noble friend corrects me. Then let us assume that the matter can be left until the next day. Let us also assume that at the same moment another young woman disputes the evidence that the young man truly wished to have a baby with the first young woman to appear, and not with her.
826
That places the HFEA in a judicial situation. It lays upon it a duty of obtaining evidence, which may be difficult and complicated. At this point I should say that I am in no sense speaking on behalf of the HFEA and that these are just considerations which appear to me rather obvious. There will be emotional urgency even if there is no physical urgency, and telephone calls in the middle of the night will not be unexpected. Is the HFEA to be staffed to remain open all night to take such telephone calls? That is a practical point.
I should like to make one general observation. If this Bill fails—I do not know whether it will fail; indeed, I do not know whether or not I wish it to fail—it will not have been in vain, because it will at least have procured a much wider knowledge among men, and women, of the desirability of writing their wishes down sooner, rather than leaving it too late.
6.26 p.m.
Baroness Robson of Kiddington: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for introducing this Bill of amendment to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act. He told us that we should not make a change in the law because of one case, and that is quite right. But he also told us of some of his experiences in the past.
Inevitably, in what we say today we are all influenced by the case of Mrs. Blood. But that is not to say that we want the law changed purely for that reason. My noble friend Lord McGregor said that he was speaking not as a doctor or a lawyer. Neither am I a doctor or a lawyer. But I am a woman and that is very important.
When I first saw the list of speakers, I was astounded not to see more contributions from the women in this House. So far we have heard only from the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock. She, of course, had to contribute to this debate. We all admire her for her work in the late 1980s and up to the introduction of the Act.
As a woman, I feel that I can have a rapport, perhaps on a different level, with Mrs. Blood and other women who are faced with that kind of choice. I have been a widow for a great number of years. I was lucky to have children and I even have eight grandchildren. Every time I see one of those children or grandchildren I see part of my husband. That is what is important. And it is important that we should enable Mrs. Blood to have that experience, though obviously in a different way because her husband will not be there to enjoy it with her. But we owe it to her nevertheless.
I want to go back and talk a little about the intention of the Bill when it was first introduced. During the Second Reading debate in 1990 in another place, the Government indicated that they intended the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to be able to act independently and to use discretion. In that debate the Government stated:
"The code of practice of the authority will have to be submitted to the Secretary of State and laid before the House, but some independence in medical and scientific matters is in the interests of Parliament and the Secretary of State".—[Official Report, Commons, 2/4/90; col. 919.].

827
So the intention was always that there should he a certain amount of independence allowed to the authority.
That is particularly relevant in Mrs. Blood's case. That must have been in the mind of the chief executive of the authority when she was telephoned by Professor Cooke of the Infertility Research Trust and gave her agreement that the semen of Mr. Blood could be stored. I believe she acted as I would expect the authority to act—compassionately. She may have been wrong, but in my view it was the right thing to do. The permission that she gave must have given Mrs. Blood great hopes that she would be able to carry her husband's child. The subsequent refusal by the authority must therefore have been doubly devastating for her.
Much has been said about the necessity for consent to be in writing. It is obviously desirable that it should be obtained, and it is extremely important that it is obtained if a third party is involved. But this situation did not involve a third party. The consent was given, albeit not in writing, in the way that the couple lived their lives prior to the husband's death. The wishes of both Mr. and Mrs. Blood were well known.
There is an additional safeguard in the case of Mrs. Blood—I am sorry to use her case to such an extent, but it is important to enable us to look at any amendment of the Act as it stands. As I understand it, the parents of both Mrs. Blood and of her husband are fully supportive of her request. We know in modern society how much family life has lost because of the dispersal of children from parents and grandparents and how important is the extended family. Mrs. Blood will be a single mother. However, she has the support of the whole of her family and that is extremely important. Also, the decision not to allow Mrs. Blood to use her husband's sperm is a refusal to give effect to their simple vows in the marriage ceremony; that is, that marriage is for the purpose of the procreation of children. In that case the law has proved itself to be both uncaring and bureaucratic.
Another consideration in these cases is the future of any child which may result from the procedure. There has been no suggestion that there is any threat to either the embryo or the mother. Mrs. Blood herself has been counselled and fully understands the responsibilities she will be taking on if she is allowed to go ahead in her attempt to carry her husband's child. As I said, additionally, she has the support of her extended family.
The BMA wrote to my noble friend Lord McGregor on 3rd December and agreed that the principle of consent need not be in writing if it could be demonstrated in another way. In other words, it is saying that it is not necessary for consent to be in writing if it can be proved that consent was given in some other way. However, it is concerned that no guidance is given in the Bill as to what circumstances may lead to the waiving of the need for written consent. I agree that, as it stands, the Bill could widen the possibilities too much. But this is the Second Reading of the Bill. Subject to this House giving it a Second Reading, we have the whole of the Committee stage to include the safeguards that noble Lords or bodies like the BMA wish to include. I sincerely hope that, with that in mind, this House will agree to give the Bill a Second Reading.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Jay of Paddington: My Lords, I too thank my noble friend for introducing this simple Bill which seeks to resolve a complicated and difficult issue. By bringing the Bill before your Lordships and by what he said, my noble friend again demonstrated that his scientific and clinical brilliance in the field of human fertilisation and embryology is matched by his deep human concern about the legal and ethical human problems involved. I congratulate too the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, on his maiden speech, which seemed to combine great clarity and persuasiveness with an admirable lack of controversy. I am sure that we shall hear from him often in the future.
Your Lordships will understand that, although I speak tonight from the Front Bench, I speak in a personal capacity. This is a subject on which it would be inappropriate to take a party political position. But in my personal capacity I fully support the aims of the Bill for the reasons so cogently argued by my noble friend in his introduction and by several other speakers.
Mrs. Diane Blood's tragic circumstances which prompted this measure have been well explained, and I am convinced that the interests of the child, which must be paramount, would be upheld if she were able to fulfill her personal wish to have a baby. However, as many noble Lords have said—indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, confirmed—Mrs. Blood's case raises general questions not foreseen when the committee of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, was deliberating and during the passage of the 1990 Bill. Frankly, that does not seem to me as a lay person particularly surprising. I would expect that technology in a field such as this would be almost bound to outstrip legislation. But the general arguments for looking with favour on the legal implications of the exciting therapeutic advances illustrated by Mrs. Blood's case have been well made in the debate. It is not necessary at this stage of the debate, particularly following the extremely helpful and powerful contribution of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to repeat any of those arguments in detail.
My concern is primarily one developed by the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, and I should like to follow her on some of her points. The points I wish to raise concern Parliament being forced to return to primary legislation each time any advance in technology or medical practice makes another therapy possible. It is that concern that we have to revisit these issues in this way which makes me uneasy—though I wholeheartedly support my noble friend's Bill. In other words, I wish we were not starting from here.
It has always been my understanding that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, explained, was established in 1990, had the specific responsibility to deal with such questions as are now the subject of my noble friend's Bill. In many debates in your Lordships' House and other discussions it has been that understanding of a delegated authority to a well qualified and authoritative organisation that has made people like myself enthusiastic about the unique system

829
of regulation in reproductive technology that the HFEA has been supposed to represent and, as I say, is unique in the world.
This view was expressed again on 30th October by my honourable friend Ms. Tessa Jowell in another place, when she pointed out that one of the explicit purposes of the original Bill was to remove from the political domain the responsibility for decisions on such matters. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, my attention has also been drawn to the Second Reading debate in another place on the 1990 Bill and, like her, I would like to quote an extract. This is from the speech of the then Secretary of State for Health, the right honourable Mr. Kenneth Clarke. He said:
"It has been argued that, rather than having a completely independent authority, Ministers should be responsible for these matters"—
the matters which might be the responsibility of the HFEA—
"We decided against that, because it would place Ministers and the House in a permanent difficult position if, as a semi-political issue, it was said that Ministers should take this or that view on medical or scientific matters".—[Official Report, Commons. 30/10/96; col. 600.]
Today it seems that the HFEA is not happy to exercise discretionary powers. As its chairman has insisted throughout the discussions about Mrs. Blood's case, the authority can only act within the strict letter of the law, which I feel has been extremely narrowly defined and it has been defined by whatever the particular circumstances may be.
However, I believe that we have a difficulty about the anomaly to which the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, has already referred in the case of Mrs. Blood, in that it is clear that the HFEA exercised discretionary powers about the storage of Mr. Blood's semen, even though it had no written consent, as the law technically requires. My attention has been drawn to the note of the conversation between Ms. Goldhill, who was then the chief executive of the HFEA, and Professor Cooke of the Infertility Research Trust. In the note Ms. Goldhill actually wrote:
"The current situation was so traumatic for the wife"—
that is, Mrs. Blood—
"in that the decision to turn off the life support system would he made in the next few hours that it would appear uncaring and unnecessarily bureaucratic to insist on the provision of proper legal consent at this time".
The authority now says, of course, that Stephen Blood's sperm was stored illegally. I would agree wholeheartedly with the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, in saying that the original decision by Ms. Goldhill, which she clearly felt sufficiently confident to record in writing, was the right one and the proper exercise of discretion. So perhaps it would be more helpful in the long term both for patients and for Parliament if the Department of Health could initiate discussions with the HFEA about the precise understanding that the Government have and the HFEA has about the scope of its authority and the boundaries of its discretion. As I said earlier, it seems to me to be more appropriate to pursue that course rather than to
830
face the possibility that Parliament will have to return continually to amending legislation to deal with unforeseen individual cases or unforeseen technical advances.
Returning to the specific provisions of the Bill, I would like to deal briefly with the point which has been made by several noble Lords about the central issue of trying to deal with the special status of genetic material and the impact of that specific status on consent, whether written or otherwise. My noble friend Lord Winston pointed out that what one might, I suppose, describe as ordinary organ donation can take place without written consent, and the noble Lord, Lord Walton, developed that point convincingly. They both implied on the same basis that to deny donation of sperm from husband to wife was unacceptable.
My instinct is to agree with that argument—that consent in writing is not necessary—but I am a little concerned, as were several noble Lords who raised the matter, that the Bill as drafted does not contain positive proposals about what kind of consent is acceptable in the circumstances described. This point has been raised in the context of the BMA's decision that some other demonstration of proof of consent should be provided if written consent is deemed unnecessary. As several noble Lords have said, the BMA feels unable to support the legislation in its present form without that more positive proof; and, like other noble Lords who have spoken, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Robson of Kiddington, at the end of her speech, I feel that that is an issue to which it would be legitimate to turn in Committee if your Lordships give the Bill a Second Reading.
It would be helpful, when the Minister replies, to have some indication from her of the Government's attitude to later stages of the Bill. I am sure that there will be, as there always is on a Private Member's Bill, departmental concern about the exact terms of my noble friend's proposals. But it would be encouraging if the Minister could say that the spirit, if not the letter, of the Bill is acceptable. As my noble friend said in introducing the Bill, he would be delighted to have official help with the form and wording of his proposals.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Winston that Parliament's overall general intention should be to strengthen the role and authority of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority. I hope that the Government will accept that, by giving this Bill a fair wind, they would be helping to achieve that.
6.46 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Baroness Cumberlege): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, for bringing this matter to the attention of your Lordships' House. I am sure that like me no one in this House today could fail to be moved by the sad and tragic case of Mrs. Diane Blood. As other noble Lords have said, we deeply sympathise with the loss of her husband and respect her courage and determination.
As I understand that Mrs. Blood will be taking her case to the Court of Appeal early in the new year, I am advised that the rest of my remarks must be confined to

831
general issues. Before I do that, I should like to congratulate the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, on his maiden speech. It was fluent, perceptive, informed and authoritative, a speech which clearly shows the noble and learned Lord's distinguished and impressive career. We look forward to hearing more from the noble and learned Lord in the future on more controversial issues, although I find it hard at this moment to identify them.
I should like to begin by setting out very briefly the background to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That Act sets out the framework within which the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as well as clinicians, have to operate.
Fourteen years ago—in 1982—in the light of concerns about techniques such as in vitro fertilisation and the use of human embryos for research, the Government asked the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, to chair a committee of inquiry. The committee's recommendations were published in 1984. There followed a consultation period. In 1986 the Government issued its own consultation paper and, a year later, a White Paper which formed the basis of the 1990 Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act.
There are two important things to note about this process: first, the remarkably high level of public consultation; and secondly, that the Act itself was passed on a free vote, after lengthy debate in both Houses. It was the first such comprehensive piece of legislation in the world and provided the parameters within which, as I have said, the HFEA operates.
I share the view of the noble Lord, Lord Winston, that the authority has a difficult task in carrying out its duties under the 1990 Act. Parliament has charged the authority with responsibilities which require very careful judgment—judgments which inevitably arouse strong emotions. I believe that the authority has carried out Parliament's wishes in an exemplary manner and I pay tribute to Mrs. Deech and her colleagues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Jay of Paddington, raised the issue of the necessity of primary legislation to keep pace with medical advances. That is a serious issue. It is one that needs to be addressed, but perhaps on another day. Both she and the noble Baroness, Lady Robson, implied that the HFEA has no room for discretion. But the authority does have some discretion under the terms of the Act. It can issue directions where the Act says it can. But the Act does not allow discretion to waive consent in writing, which has been the burden of a good deal of the debate today.
One key requirement of the 1990 Act is the need for consent to be in writing for the storage and use of gametes. Over recent weeks there has been a good deal of public discussion as to whether these existing provisions reflect current clinical and lay opinion. The Government's role is to ensure that these issues are debated fully so that all the implications are properly weighed before changes are proposed. I have listened carefully not only to the noble Lord, Lord Winston, but to my noble friend Lord Moyne, the noble Lords, Lord Kilbracken and Lord Rix, the noble Baronesses, Lady Robson and Lady Jay, and indeed other noble Lords
832
who support the Bill. However, it is my view and that of the Government that any possible changes should not be undertaken lightly or without the same full and careful consideration which was given to the framing of the original Act. For that reason the Government propose that there should be an examination of these issues. We do not think that all the provisions of the 1990 Act require reconsideration. However, we think that the time is now right, especially in the light of your Lordships' debate and the national debate, to look at the specific requirement for consent to be in writing and the potential implications for the remainder of the 1990 Act; and, if relevant, other legislation relating to medical interventions.
We will set out in due course how we intend this review to be carried out. Both this and the timing will require careful consideration. What I can say is that in taking forward the review we will seek the views of interested parties to ensure that all the issues are properly explored.
The noble Lord's Bill has been brought forward with, I know, the best of intentions to respond to the distress of a particular woman and to ensure that other women are not put in a similar situation. The effect of the Bill would be to provide a very wide discretion to the HFEA to waive the requirement under the Act for written consent for the use of human gametes; that is, both male sperm or female eggs. It would also enter entirely new territory by making provisions on the taking of gametes. I shall outline some of the concerns that we have with the Bill.
Our first and perhaps important concern is the question of consent. It is one which clearly disturbs many of your Lordships and is a fundamental matter. The Act itself contains a number of important provisions: the underlying theme throughout is the importance of consent by the people involved in the various procedures and, to quote the report of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, the need for "fully informed consent". The noble Lord, Lord Winston, asked whether the posthumous use of sperm was discussed in the original Act. It was in Section 28(6)(b) and aspects of Schedule 3 to the 1990 Act which dealt with issues relevant to the posthumous use of sperm. As my noble friend Lord Ashbourne said, it was also addressed in the report of the committee of inquiry. The noble Lord's Bill does not seek to remove the need for consent, but, as the noble Lord, Lord Meston, advocated, to remove the need for it to be in writing.
I share the concern of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford and other noble Lords as to how such consent could be given where, in the circumstances mentioned in the Bill, the person providing the gametes is either incapacitated or dead. Is the consent going to be provided by someone else; and if so, who would be able to do that? This issue was also addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Walton, and I believe it needs further thought. For as your Lordships will be aware, English law does not recognise the concept of "substituted consent" whereby one adult may give consent on behalf of another who is unable to do so due to incapacity. If an adult is unable to consent because, for example, he

833
or she is unconscious or otherwise incapacitated, then any medical intervention is governed by the concept of "the best interests of the patient".
There are other important safeguards in the Act to ensure that the consent is fully informed and that the use of gametes is fully in accordance with the person's wishes. These include the requirement to specify the maximum period of storage for the gametes if that is less than the maximum statutory storage period. The consent must also specify what is to happen to the gametes should the person who gave the consent subsequently die or is unable because of incapacity either to vary the terms of consent or to revoke it.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, has offered us some fruitful avenues to explore concerning these issues. As the noble Lord, Lord Winston, said, there is a requirement for an opportunity for counselling, as well as relevant information, to be provided before consent is given. That is most important because it provides an opportunity for the person whose gametes are to be used to consider all the implications of the proposed course; namely, to create a new human life with all the responsibilities that that entails. The Act requires counselling to be offered to both where they are to be treated together.
If a person other than the person providing the gametes is to give the consent, should this be restricted to the partner of a married or unmarried couple, or relatives? Should the doctor or other health professional give consent; and what if the relatives disagree about the incapacitated person's wishes? The possibilities are numerous and illustrate the complexity of amending the legislation.
A further consideration is timing, an issue addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet. Under the provisions of the noble Lord's Bill, what is to happen to the incapacitated, or even dead, person while a partner seeks the views of the authority as to whether the gametes may be taken and whether the requirement for written consent to the use of his or her gametes may be waived? Apart from my concerns about taking gametes from people without their consent—and I shall come on to this point in a moment—I am disturbed by the thought that people who are clinically dead may be kept on life-support machines for an undefined period while these questions are considered, or that such decisions may affect the treatment they receive in some way.
The noble Lord's Bill also includes a reference to the provision of gametes. The taking of eggs or sperm is not covered by the Act and this would introduce something entirely new into the Act without any form of public consultation or wider consideration. To take a person's gametes without their consent would represent a most fundamental change in our law on healthcare interventions. At present such interventions can be made only in the best interests of that person.
The noble Lord, Lord Walton, suggested that there is a comparison in Mrs. Blood's case with the decision to donate organs after death. But persons can make a written request during their lifetime—for example, using an organ donor card—or can make an oral request in the
834
presence of two witnesses in the course of their last illness. If they have done neither of these the person lawfully in possession of the body, usually an NHS trust, can authorise the use of organs if it has no reason to believe that the deceased had objected to this, or that the spouse or surviving relative objected. In other words, the relative does not have a role in consenting; rather he or she is entitled to object. But, in any case, there is a world of difference between using organs to preserve the life or health of another person and using someone's genetic material to create a new life.
The noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, and other noble Lords have shown real concern about the welfare of the child. There was clearly no consensus. However, I am sure all your Lordships would agree with the 1990 Act which quite rightly attaches considerable importance to children born through in vitro fertilisation. Section 13(5) provides:
"A woman shall not be provided with treatment services unless account has been taken of the welfare of any child who may he born as a result of the treatment (including the need of that child for a father), and of any other child who may he affected by the birth".
This requirement is reflected in the Bill. However, these inquiries are usually left to the clinicians concerned, because they are in the best position to know of the patient's background and to have access to their medical records. It is difficult to see how the HFEA could satisfy itself about this requirement in individual cases and how it could resolve any conflicts, such as those that may arise between clinicians and relatives, in the evidence it would be required to consider.
Our debate today has touched on fundamental issues of life and death. I consider the review will provide an opportunity for everyone to explore these complex legal, ethical, practical issues and their implications in depth. I hope that it will be conducted in a measured way, as advocated by the noble Lord, Lord McGregor, and that it will provide a sound basis from which Parliament will be able to consider whether there is a need to amend the 1990 Act.
7 p.m.
Lord Winston: My Lords, there is a fine tradition in this House of the best kind of debate, of informed, temperate and careful judgment of the issue, and this debate has been in the very best traditions of your Lordships' House. It has been augmented particularly by the distinguished maiden speaker, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Clyde, and his outstanding maiden speech. We are grateful for that. I am grateful, without exception, for all the contributions. I was pleased to see the Chamber reasonably full, given that this debate is on a rather inconvenient day, and I am grateful that so many speeches were so thoughtfully produced. I do not want to delay the House any further at this late hour. However, I should like briefly to raise one or two points, and particularly to thank the Minister for being available and for saying that this matter would be looked into. We are grateful for that.

835
It is clear that the Bill needs better drafting. As has been pointed out, it is my maiden Bill. It is only a little Bill—I do not have much parliamentary experience—and although there may be one or two deficiencies, I believe that they can be sorted out.
Perhaps I may say to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford that we must not lay too much emphasis on written consent. It is not infallible. Indeed, it is only a snapshot. People can forget that they have given their written consent. Gametes can still be used with written consent and without any more validity than the proper verbal consent that we are trying to introduce with this modification to the legislation.
Although I do not want to introduce a new subject into the debate, I should say briefly that the benefits are not only to childless women, but to women who have had one child by a living father and who may want a second child to complete the family. I can advise noble Lords from my professional experience that one of the biggest problems facing my patients is that of secondary infertility. Women often feel that a one-child family is not adequate and that a second child would help that first child's rearing. That is a positive example of where another person would make the family complete and greatly augment its happiness and well being.
I am grateful to the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Habgood, although I have some difficulty with what he said about opening the floodgates. I really do not believe that we are going down a slippery slope. Indeed, there is some recognition of that fact in the evidence from America. There are over 200 centres in the United States where, rightly or wrongly, there is no particular problem with written consent. In a country the size of the United States, with a population of over 240 million people, there have been only 36 applications for posthumous insemination, so I really do not believe that there would be many cases in a country such as ours which is one-fifth of its size. People get knocked off motorbikes or killed by motorcars in the United States when they are young—and probably to an even greater extent there than in Great Britain. That point should answer one of the concerns raised by the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, about traffic accidents.
Perhaps I may make just another point to the Minister. The HFEA may not have complete discretion with regard to the nature of consent, but it does have very full discretion over the possible export of gametes for use. The provisions are clearly stated in Section 24(4) of the Act:
"Directions may authorise any person to whom a licence applies to receive gametes or embryos from outside the United Kingdom or to send gametes or embryos outside the United Kingdom in such circumstances and subject to such conditions as may be specified in the directions".
However, those directions are not written into the law. They are a matter for discussion with the HFEA. That may be one possible let-out and should be explored in detail. It is a wide discretion. In addition, if written consent were so crucial, why did Parliament expressly authorise the nature of the export of gametes in such circumstances?
836
Finally, I should like to thank noble Lords very much for contributing to the debate on this important matter. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Home Energy Rating Surveys Bill [H.L.]
7.6 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The purpose of the Bill is to promote greater energy efficiency in the home. Although many people have already taken steps to achieve this in their homes—no doubt noble Lords who are to speak have done so—all the evidence suggests that the larger proportion of homes in this country are still relatively inefficient in terms of energy. There are two important reasons why this should be put right. First, the threat of global warming is still regarded as serious and the reduction of emissions into the atmosphere, particularly from energy usage, remains a major objective of government policy. Secondly, improvements in energy usage can substantially reduce costs and therefore this is a valid objective in itself. The Energy Efficiency Office estimates that a typical medium-sized semi-detached house without any insulation might cost around £500 a year to heat. With good insulation and heating controls up to half that expenditure could be saved and of course there would be greater comfort and warmth.
The difficulty is that in the present state of the energy market there is reduced incentive for consumers to save. There are abundant supplies of energy available and increased competition has brought prices down. In the wider environmental interest, it is necessary to counteract these market signals. This Bill proposes one way in which that might be done through the more widespread use of the energy rating of homes.
Fortunately, the way in which homes can be energy-rated is now well established. In July 1993 the Government published their standard assessment procedure or SAP. This is the Government's standard system for home energy rating developed by the Building Research Establishment in discussion with other rating professionals. Some time before this, a number of independent home energy rating procedures had been developed. For example, one was initiated by the National Energy Foundation, of which Dr. Mary Archer is chairman. The Government rightly, in my opinion, decided that co-ordination between the different systems was necessary. The SAP provides that co-ordination and enables the other systems, of which there are four main ones, to be readily converted to the SAP rating. Equally, the SAP rating can be used on its own. The SAP assesses the energy efficiency of a home through an energy audit using a scale of one to 100. The higher the score the more energy efficient the home.
If the system were applied widely, as it is in similar form in some other European countries, it would enable potential home buyers to take energy costs into account when choosing a home, make comparison with others

837
and carry out appropriate improvements. Since July 1995 there has been a requirement under the building regulations for SAP ratings to be applied to new houses and conversions. If the rating falls below 60, the builder has to review the energy efficiency proposal and come up with a better figure. The National Housebuilders Council launched a campaign among its members for achieving SAP ratings of 80 plus in February of this year. We can therefore conclude that effective steps have been taken to achieve energy ratings of 60 per cent. or more in newly built homes.
However, the trouble is that the majority of homes in this country are not new and so far there has been no equivalent regulation to bring about a widespread use of energy ratings in these older properties. A number of initiatives have been taken to stimulate the voluntary application of the system. The Energy Efficiency Office have put out some very effective leaflets describing the system. However, for an individual householder to have a rating made would cost between £50 and £150, depending on the size and nature of the residence. This sum could no doubt be recovered over time when the remedial action was taken and energy savings achieved, but there has so far been relatively little offtake of this service.
The Department of the Environment have been in touch with building societies in an endeavour to see whether they could stimulate the application of energy ratings on a larger scale. Two building societies, the Nationwide and the Halifax, responded positively and carried out exercises in conjunction with the department. In a Written Answer dated 7th November 1996 in another place, it was stated that a total of 4,000 SAP ratings were issued by the Nationwide Building Society in 1995 under a joint initiative with the department, and under a similar initiative with the Halifax Building Society in 1996 6,500 SAP ratings were issued.
The results of these exercises are now being studied by the department. They are not aware of any statistics or estimates indicating the percentage of other mortgage lenders who may be providing SAP ratings. In presenting a home energy rating certificate to two Halifax customers in 1996, Mr. Robert Jones, MP, the Minister for Energy Efficiency, said that the certificates contained the overall energy rating of the home, together with recommendations on energy efficiency improvements. This of course is a very important part of the certificate, which indicates to the purchaser or home owner what steps they can take to improve their home from the energy point of view. Mr. Robert Jones urged other mortgage lenders to follow the lead of the Halifax Building Society.
As I have indicated, unlike new house-build, where energy ratings are mandatory, there are no similar arrangements for the existing housing stock. This Bill attempts to fill that gap. I very much hope that building societies and other mortgage lenders will support this proposal. Building societies in particular have a tradition of serving the community. That is how they started in the 19th century. Here is another way in which they can contribute to the wider interests of the community. As I stated earlier, private individuals who have the energy
838
rating surveys made at their own expense could be involved in sums of between £50 and £150. This can act, and has acted, as a major deterrent. On the other hand, if building societies incorporate the energy rating in the valuation surveys which they have to carry out anyway before they make a loan, the additional cost can be very small. Figures as low as £10 to £15 have been mentioned.
Recently I had a discussion with Mr. Peter Hales, who is the chief executive of Countrywide Surveyors. They provide a valuation survey service to mortgage lenders and cover about 200,000 homes a year. They have incorporated the SAP procedure in their surveys, and for an extra cost of £15 can provide a SAP rating and a three—page report on the improvements which could be introduced as a result of that rating. A Which? report found that 60 per cent. of people, in a survey conducted by them, said that they would have liked information on heating when buying their new house. The proposals in this Bill would provide a very simple way of doing that.
I should now like to go through the three clauses of this short Bill. Clause 1 lays down that every mortgage lender, before granting a mortgage, shall as part of or in addition to any valuation, carry out an energy rating survey. A copy of this survey, together with recommendations for improvement, would be handed to the mortgagor. A reasonable charge could be made for this service, although, as I have pointed out, the costs would be very small and some mortgage lenders might simply take it into account in fixing the mortgage terms.
Clause 2 lays down that the Secretary of State shall, as soon as is practicable and not later than six months after the passing of the Act, issue guidance to mortgage lenders to carry out their duties under Clause 1. Clause 3 defines the various terms used, and in particular makes it clear that an energy rating survey means a professional survey and assessment of the energy efficiency of a building using the Government's standard assessment procedure and containing a list of recommendations for cost-effective improvement. This Bill could, with no public cost and very little private cost, contribute substantially to the improved energy efficiency of houses in this country. It would complement the measures already in force under the building regulations affecting newly-built houses and conversions. I commend it to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Ezra.)
7.17 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I should like briefly to support the Bill moved so ably by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, and thank him for having introduced it in such a clear way. I should also like to pay tribute to the noble Lord because over the years, as your Lordships will know, he has done so much on energy efficiency matters.
I believe it is a small but sensible Bill, although possibly slightly less controversial than the Bill we have been dealing with up until now. Nevertheless, it will affect many more people in a beneficial way. The noble Lord mentioned that energy prices are probably cheaper

839
than they have been for many years in real terms; and they are, I believe, likely to fall even further next year when competition from gas will be available all over the country. The same will apply in the year after when there will be competition from electricity for domestic supply. With the strong pound at the moment, and with many prices being expressed in dollars, I think that we are going to see cheap energy.
Therefore it is an extremely sensible time to do something about energy savings, because the financial incentive to save energy is probably less than it has ever been or than it has been for many, many years. As the noble Lord said, it is not just the cost saving which the consumer can make as a result of these measures; there is also an increase in comfort, warmth and so on, which is extremely useful. I do not believe that the story is all gloom and despondency, because through my London letter box not so long ago I received an offer from London Electricity for a package of energy savings. I did not take them up because I already had most of them. At least the power companies offer that kind of service.
As the noble Lord has said, the cost of the survey should be minimal. It must be minimal if it is to be acceptable to the house buyer. It is no more than a survey that any sensible person would request when intending to buy a property. Nevertheless, not everyone is sensible in these matters. The noble Lord has referred to a survey cost of between £10 and £15. That sum of money could be saved by the prospective house buyer in a short space of time. One is aware that house prices are beginning to rise again. Bearing in mind house prices in London and the south-east, a sum of £10 or £15 is not likely to make much difference to the prospective buyer.
I was interested to hear the remarks of the noble Lord about the standard assessment procedure. I was not aware of that. It sounds a very useful measure. Presumably it covers such matters as loft insulation, hot water tank lagging, cavity wall insulation and other aspects. I do not know whether it covers gas boilers. Perhaps it should do so. If one buys a new gas boiler today, one can recover the cost of replacing an old and inefficient one in a remarkably short space of time. I am sure that a good number of people are unaware of that. I do not suppose that it covers energy-saving light bulbs. One is aware that the last thing some people do when leaving houses they have just sold is to remove light bulbs from sockets.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: Speak for yourself!
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I did not hear the remark of the noble Lord opposite! Of course, because energy-saving light bulbs are more expensive, they provide an even greater incentive to the person leaving the house to remove them from light sockets.
In general, when people move into their new homes, they have set aside money to spend on improvements, mainly decoration perhaps. They may intend to put in a new kitchen. If they have money available it is useful
840
to devote some of it to energy-saving measures the cost of which can be recovered remarkably quickly. Therefore, I support the Bill.
7.23 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, at this late hour, prolixity is contra-indicated. When the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, whom I hold in the highest esteem, asked me to support the Bill I had no idea what he was talking about. I obtained a copy of the Bill. Having read it, I congratulate him on his initiative. What he proposes to do is to collect information as a guide to policy-making tomorrow. That is a welcome initiative. Too often when one is asked to make a decision, one cannot take it. The requisite information necessary to do so is not available because the day before yesterday no one set out to collect it. I believe that the initiative of the noble Lord should be a matter for great congratulation, and I wish his Bill good fortune. I hope that it will be supported by the House.
7.24 p.m.
Lord Graham of Edmonton: My Lords, like others who have spoken, noble Lords on these Benches give this initiative a very warm welcome. As the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon has said, the record of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, in this field is outstanding. I jotted down the question, "Where would we be without him?" There are not many who would have the gumption, foresight or even at times the cheek to challenge the executive by asking them to face up to something which perhaps it is not looking for. I refer to work that is stimulating others to take on very powerful bodies like the Building Societies Association and the Mortgage Lenders Association. Those bodies do a very good job. One can immediately see the advantages of this measure in practical terms, yet it does not play a part in the world of house selling or house maintenance.
The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, raised obliquely the question of house prices. From my knowledge, the sum of £100,000 may be a modest figure in some parts of the country. For a sum of £15 one can get extra assurance or information. Some years ago, I was very much taken with the idea of each house having a log book. When one bought a house, one would get not only the bricks and mortar but a log book which recorded what had happened to it from the time it was built to the present day. It would record changes of owner and who had done what and how it had been done. On the two or three occasions in my life when I have been involved in house purchase, I have wished that I could be aware of what had been done (or, more importantly, what had not been done) at a particular time.
I look upon this modest measure as an opportunity to stimulate others. It should be very helpful. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said that the organisation that he had consulted reported that for £15 three pages of information would be provided. This is all to do with the willingness of people to do certain things at various stages in the chain. I refer to mortgage lenders, estate agents, banks, etc. It is a matter of those bodies, if not surreptitiously, taking for granted this modest extra cost of £15. The £15 is based upon the survey being carried

841
out by virtually everyone. The noble Lord points out that anyone can have an energy efficiency assessment carried out for between £50 and £150. If one strikes a mean and says that the cost will be £100, that will be £100 well spent. Obviously, if one can obtain the same service for £15, it will be very welcome.
When the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, referred to light bulbs—in what I call an enlightened speech—I wrote down, "You speak for yourself'. As someone who has always been concerned about the myth of coal being kept in baths in council houses, it is nice to hear from across the Chamber that someone actually removes bulbs from light sockets when moving house. Council house tenants never do that.
This is a very useful initiative that is fully in keeping with the spirit of the proposal outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, which is to try, try and try again. While the Minister will raise questions on the possible cost, consultation, parliamentary time and priorities—I certainly hope that she does not have "resist" at the end of her speech—this matter should be given a fair wind. I hope that the Minster will complete the quartet of those who support the Bill so that we can see how far it will get.
7.28 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, for introducing his Bill so ably this evening. Action to improve the energy efficiency of our housing stock is an important objective. The noble Lord's Bill gives us an opportunity to consider not only home energy ratings but the underlying objective of how to improve the energy efficiency of the country's housing stock. It is important to put our consideration of the Bill into this wider context.
The domestic sector is a substantial energy user. It is therefore a major source of the United Kingdom's emissions of the main greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, which is now generally regarded as a contribution to the world's changing climate. In 1995 we used about £13 billion worth of energy in our homes for heating, lighting and running domestic appliances. That is equivalent to about 150 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, or 27 per cent. of the United Kingdom's total emissions. The trend in absolute energy consumption in the domestic sector has been steadily upwards for about the past 20 years. We now use about 16 per cent. more energy in our homes compared with 1975. This is partly because the housing stock has grown by 20 per cent.—from around 19.5 million to nearly 24 million over the period—and partly because homes are now much more comfortable—on average about 3 degrees centigrade warmer. The proportion of households with central heating has more than doubled since the early 1970s, and most of us have more domestic appliances in our homes.
Without the significant improvements in energy efficiency which have been encouraged by our successive policies and programmes, that 16 per cent. rise in consumption could have been much worse. The
842
Building Research Establishment, which is one of the recognised national centres of expertise in this field, estimates that without the higher standards of insulation, heating systems, controls and more energy efficient appliances, the increase in domestic energy consumption could have been about four times higher over broadly the same period. I agree with my noble friend Lord Brabazon that with low energy prices there could be fewer incentives to save energy. The Government recognise the importance of improving the energy efficiency performance of the housing stock. In that respect, the Bill has merit.
The Government's aim is generally to reduce energy waste and so also to reduce energy bills and emissions of carbon dioxide which are attributable to the domestic sector; and specifically to improve living conditions for people, especially those on low incomes. The Government have therefore developed a wide range of programmes and initiatives in support of those aims. These programmes are carried out in partnership with a large number of organisations, including local authorities, housing associations, lenders, housebuilders, the energy utilities, the Energy Saving Trust and, of course, householders themselves.
Those measures include the Home Energy Conservation Act 1995; the revised building regulations for England and Wales which came into effect last July and which require all new designs to have a home energy rating derived using the Government's standard assessment procedure; the home energy efficiency scheme; government funding for approved Energy Saving Trust projects; a market transformation campaign for household appliances; and the Energy Efficiency Best Practice Programme which has stimulated improvements in domestic energy efficiency worth an estimated £250 million per annum since 1989.
The Government's standard assessment procedure (SAP) is the national standard for home energy rating. It is based on the Building Research Establishment's domestic energy model. It is a detailed and defined set of calculation steps—known as algorithms—which on a systematic basis estimates the annual energy running costs for space and water heating per unit floor area of the dwelling. It expresses the result on a scale of 1, which is poor, to 100, which is good. Excellent may be a better way of describing it.
Standard assessment procedure takes into account the main factors influencing energy efficiency in homes. These include the standard of insulation in the walls, floor and roof; whether the windows are double-glazed or not; whether draught stripping has been applied; the efficiency of the heating system; and the energy type (for example, gas, oil, coal and electricity) and its cost. With regard to he efficiency of the heating system, I am pleased to tell my noble friend Lord Brabazon that it covers condensing boilers and the insulation thereof, but it does not cover light bulbs because SAP does not cover removable items.
The standard assessment procedure is now well established for a wide range of domestic energy efficiency assessments. It is now in the building regulations for England and Wales. It is also specified

843
by the Housing Corporation as a criterion for new housing and refurbishment projects submitted by housing associations. It is used by many local authorities to assess the energy efficiency performance of their housing stock. It is used by housing design professionals as one of the tools to help improve the energy efficiency of their designs. And it was used in the analyses for the energy report of the 1991 English House Condition Survey, which was published only last week.
The SAP ratings achieved for new homes paint a good and improving picture of energy efficiency performance. Existing homes are, I regret to say, in not nearly so good a position. The potential for improving energy efficiency in the existing stock is huge. If poorly performing homes were brought up to a reasonable standard—better insulation, better heating systems and controls and better advice on how we can run our homes more energy efficiently—the nation could reduce its energy costs by perhaps £2 billion or more each and every year.
With many households obtaining greater warmth, as well as saving costs, there can also be health benefits from improved energy efficiency. So for both those reasons the existing stock is a high priority area for the Government's domestic energy efficiency programmes.
Energy ratings have two main roles. They are performance benchmarks and design tools for building professionals and they are energy labels for consumers. But they are only one means of informing householders and tenants how energy efficient or otherwise their homes are. On their own, ratings can help to inform, but specific action is needed to raise standards. It is therefore the recommendations which can be derived from an analysis of home energy rating data which are, arguably, more important.
In his Bill the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, proposes that mortgage lenders should be obliged to carry out, or to have carried out, a standard assessment procedure home energy rating survey with every mortgage valuation or other survey and that a copy of the rating survey be given to the mortgagor. While we have some sympathy with the aims of the Bill, the Government cannot agree that this is quite the best way of achieving more energy efficient homes across the nation.
The Government have long recognised the important role which mortgage lenders can play in helping to improve the energy efficiency of the private sector, owner-occupier housing stock. Mortgage lenders are one of the most important players in the house-buying market. Over the past 18 months or so, Department of the Environment Ministers have held meetings with about 20 lenders, including some of the biggest names in the country.
As a result, many lenders, including the Halifax, Nationwide, NatWest Home Loans and Barclay's Bank, have expressed support for the general aim of improving energy efficiency. Some of them have carried out their own trials and others have been involved with joint home energy rating trials, which the Department of the Environment has supported. Those trials have involved over 10,000 prospective mortgagors. The findings, when
844
they have been fully analysed, are expected to prove influential in the development of our initiatives with the mortgage lenders.
The initial analysis so far is revealing. There are three main points which are relevant to the noble Lord's Bill: first, once house buyers are given information about what they can do to improve the energy efficiency performance of their homes, the majority of them—over 80 per cent.—welcomed the energy efficiency information provided and indicated that they would be likely to take action in the next two years. That very much confirms what the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, said. Secondly, the time which is required to incorporate the standard assessment procedure into the highly competitive commercial mortgage valuation business is significant. It is equivalent to losing, on average, one mortgage valuation per day on a typical day's work of about five to six valuations per surveyor. Thirdly, the trials have stimulated at least one lender to consider alternative ways of advising mortgagors on energy efficiency improvements—ways which the mortgagor may find better. Whereas we were delighted by the first finding, we were disappointed, but not entirely surprised, by the second.
We have long recognised the commercial environment in which home energy ratings must be designed to operate if they are to become widely used. The noble Lord, Lord Ezra, quite rightly says that individual home energy ratings for owner-occupiers cost typically £50 to £150. Because of that they are rarely requested and we recognised that the one-off market for standard assessment procedure ratings would be very small indeed.
On the other hand, a rating carried out as part of another activity—a mortgage valuation or, better still, a home buyer's report or full structural survey—would cost significantly less, though whether the cost is as low as the £10 quoted by the noble Lord is somewhat doubtful. Much depends on the training and experience of the surveyor and on the respective procedures used by the rating organisations.
That is why we have been encouraging the four rating organisations, which have been licensed by the Government to issue authorised standard assessment procedure home energy ratings, to devise quicker methods of obtaining ratings to the standard laid down by the Department of the Environment. One of these simpler methods was used in the trials which I mentioned. But there is some way to go before we and the rating organisations have a workable procedure which satisfies the criteria set by the lenders for mortgage valuations.
The trials have shown that the standard assessment procedure is still too complicated to deliver ratings at an acceptable cost to the lender. The Department of the Environment will want to consider further with the lenders and the rating organisations whether it can be simplified further for this market application and still have sufficient value for the mortgagor.
The third finding—that the biggest mortgage lender is prepared to look at alternative ways of informing mortgagors about energy efficiency opportunities—is

845
perhaps the most valuable. We shall certainly be following up specific ideas with the Halifax and more generally with other mortgage lenders and the Council of Mortgage Lenders. We were pleased to hear about and to welcome the initiative which was taken by Countrywide to offer ratings as part of its service to lenders. We hope that other surveyor organisations will follow suit, thereby allowing the market to encourage the provision of SAP ratings. We were grateful that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, had the opportunity to speak to Peter Hales earlier.
The noble Lord has proposed that mortgage lenders should be allowed to make a reasonable charge for the preparation and provision of the energy rating survey. I can understand why this might, at first sight, seem to offer a way forward. But I can also see on closer examination why it is unlikely to be the case.
The mortgage industry is a highly competitive one and lenders are understandably reluctant to offer services which they know, one way or another, have to be paid for. Of the approximately 1.2 million mortgage valuations which are commissioned each year, 20 per cent. relate to mortgage applications which do not proceed. About 15 per cent. relate to new homes, where standard assessment procedure rating information is available through other sources, and about 40 per cent. relate to re-mortgages. Only about 25 per cent. relate to new mortgages on existing homes. So most mortgagors would, one way or another, be asked to pay for a service which they did not need.
As I said earlier, the Government have some sympathy with the aims of this Bill. We both agree that there is a substantial interest from householders in having easy to follow information on energy efficiency which they can use, not to alter their decision on their chosen home but to help make that home better and cheaper to heat.
However, we regard home energy ratings for the owner-occupier market as one means to an end and not an end in itself. As it is drafted, the Bill runs some risk that the ratings will indeed be perceived as an end in themselves. If the commercial rating organisations can devise standard assessment procedure rating services which are attractive to the mortgage lenders, we would be happy to encourage the market process. The commercial rating organisations have been encouraged and are vigorously exploring ways to deliver ratings more cheaply while meeting our quality standard. But, as things stand, they have not yet achieved their, and our, objective.
The Government will follow up the interest which has been expressed in the home energy rating studies involving the Halifax and the Nationwide. We will explore with them and others, including the Council of Mortgage Lenders, how we can best work together to make reliable and worthwhile energy efficiency information available to borrowers. That will also draw on the knowledge gained from the standard assessment procedure and other sources.
While the Government cannot support this Bill, we shall not oppose it being given its Second Reading today.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. The noble Lords, Lord Brabazon and Lord Graham of Edmonton, and the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, were kind enough to support the Bill. We represent all the party affiliations in this House and therefore we can say that the Bill has all-party support. I hope that that is duly noted.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness as she gave us a well informed statement on the subject. I am grateful for that. When in her peroration she indicated the vast sums of money and amount of emissions which could be saved as a result of the wider application of energy saving methods in the existing housing stock I thought that she was going to conclude by saying, "And we wholeheartedly support this Bill". But of course that was not to be. For some reason, which I find totally illogical, she said, "Yes, but we cannot support the Bill". It is intended precisely to achieve the savings which she wants to achieve.
I found the reasoning why the Bill cannot be adopted to be very odd. First, the cost of the rating would be reduced to the individual householder from about £100 to £15, as the Government agreed. Fifteen pounds is a prudent figure. Countrywide Surveyors is prepared to make that charge. The figure which the Minister quoted about the loss of one survey per day per surveyor was given to me by the Halifax. All right, perhaps it is not as efficiently organised as the Nationwide. However, Countrywide was firm and said that it carries out 200,000 surveys a year and it was prepared to offer the service for that minimal additional charge. The noble Baroness said that we must see how we can reduce it further. For goodness sake, how much further does one want to go than £15 for a home costing £50,000 or £100,000? The amount is spread over the life of the average mortgage of 25 years and I do not know how many pence per annum it works out at. How can one get lower than that? I found that argument difficult to accept.
The Minister then said that we must not regard the rating as an end in itself. Of course not, but 1 thought that the enormous merit of the rating, which the Government have devised and supported, was that it gives one a basis on which to compare one house with another and to evaluate the nature of the housing stock.
I am one of the few who has had a rating carried out and I was appalled to find how low it was. Although I pride myself on knowing something about these matters, I immediately put in hand a number of measures which I had not carried out efficiently. I have now brought the rating up a little. With the kind of house I have, I cannot get the rating up to 100 per cent. but at least I am over 50 per cent., which I am told is not bad for my property. Therefore, I cannot understand why the noble Baroness says that that is only one way. The Government have very laudably devised this system. Why do they not wish to promote its usage by this very simple mechanism? The Minister said that there are ways in which the lenders can promote energy saving by other means. Of course that is true but that will not have the benefit of carrying this certified figure indicating energy saving.

847
I am indebted to the noble Baroness for saying that she will not oppose the Second Reading of the Bill. As she was reaching the end of her speech, I thought that that was precisely what she was going to say but she is not going to do that. Therefore, the Bill will receive its Second Reading and I hope that in our subsequent considerations of the Bill, we shall make some progress and try to persuade her to support it, although she is reluctant to do so at the moment. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

DSS Benefit Offices: Proposed Sale
7.51 p.m.
Earl Russell Earl Russell rose to move to resolve, That the proposed sale of Department of Social Security benefit offices shall not proceed until the House is satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place to preserve ministerial accountability for the delivery of benefits.
The noble Earl said: I am tempted to begin with A E Housman's Fragment of a Greek Tragedy: my purpose in asking is to know. It is no part of my intention at the moment to make a party political speech. Whether I can say the same for my reply depends on the reply that I receive from the Minister.
I should like to understand a great deal more than I do at present about the proposal for the privatisation or lease-back of the Benefits Agency which was announced briefly just before the Summer Recess. I should like to know what exactly the Government are doing and if they cannot give us that information now, I should like to know whether they can give it to us well before any irrevocable decisions are taken.
I begin with a few basic questions about the "prime project", as I understand it is known in departmental circles. First, shall we be able to ask parliamentary Questions about delivery? I appreciate that the Minister will not be able to answer in person but shall we be able to use the same system as we use for matters relating to the Benefits Agency? That is a fairly basic question and, for me, a good deal hangs on the answer.
I want to know whether the department is contemplating a sale or an example of the private finance initiative. My latest intelligence suggests that it is the PEI with which we are dealing, but one way or another I should like to know. If it is the PFI, I should like to know, as I always do, whether we can be told before any contract is concluded what the long-term costs to public funds of the PFI agreement will be. Without knowing that, I cannot see that we can ever judge adequately a PFI project. And because even in this House we have a legitimate interest in the proper use of public money, I think that we are entitled to that information.
I should like to know what is envisaged as the contractor's source of profit because in the private sector, there must always be a legitimate profit. If that does not exist, from the contractor's point of view, it is useless. Is the profit envisaged to be made through
848
savings on service delivery and if so, can we be told how and in what way those savings will be made? I ask for an assurance that that will not be at the expense of the interests of claimants. Alternatively, is the saving to be made by reducing the Benefits Agency's estate, as has been suggested? If so, I should like to know what criteria are being used to judge what estate is and is not necessary and perhaps even more important, who is using those criteria. Are the criteria to be used only by the contracting firms deciding whether the estate is necessary to its commercial interest or, in a matter which involves both the administration of public money and the rights of citizens to entitlements, will there be any public interest input into deciding whether it is necessary for a particular outlet to be preserved? I imagine that a number of Members of another place representing rural constituencies will be fairly interested in the Minister's answers to those questions.
Is it to be done by cutting down on outlets? Again, if so, I should like to know who will make those decisions. Is there to be any scope, before decisions are finally taken, for parliamentary approbation in relation to any decisions about which outlets are to be cut down because in an issue which concerns the citizens, there is legitimate scope for parliamentary input. If there are no answers, I hope that we shall have an assurance that nothing will be done until we do have some answers.
Also, I recall that the Minister said last July that we are dealing with a 20-year arrangement after which the leases of DSS properties came to an end. I hope that that is a correct recollection. If the Minister said that, what will happen at the end of the 20 years because we cannot hope that we shall be so far into the withering away of the state that the need for a benefits agency will have disappeared?
I turn from that to consider some of the criteria which we should use. I hope that the Minister will not turn this debate into one between public service and privatisation because I hope that none of us here would believe that the boundaries between the public and private sectors should be set in stone where they are now. If we agree on that position, then we need to consider any future question empirically in deciding what should be public and what should be private.
I want to suggest a few of those criteria and ask whether the Minister agrees with them; and if he does, whether his proposed plan of action can meet them. In the course of doing that, I should like to look, at least cursorily, at the proposed contracting-out of the child benefit service and at some of the proposals which are being made for privatisation inside the CSA.
First, clearly there must be a way in which to avoid conflict of interest. We must have a situation where the making of profit does not conflict with the need to deliver the service because if that conflict of interest exists, we cannot be sure that we shall be adequately served.
That is a long-term problem. When we were dealing with the Spanish Armada, the fleet was kept together at night by flying a poop lantern on the leading ship. One night that task was given to Sir Francis Drake. Those were in the days when warfare was still a privatised

849
business. It was conducted for profit, for booty, plunder and ransoms. When dawn broke, Sir Francis Drake was nowhere to be seen and the English fleet was sailing right under the poop lantern of the Spanish flagship, to their considerable alarm. Drake was discovered several miles away boarding a dismasted Spanish galleon which contained all the money for paying the Spanish soldiers. Drake Enterprises was still in business.
I understand that but I hope that the Minister understands equally that that created a conflict of interest. It is that type of problem with which I am concerned.
In that context, I am interested in how monitoring is to take place and by whom. What sort of penalty clauses will there be in the contracts for failure to deliver an adequate service? If the penalties are sufficiently large to deter, may that not constitute an incentive to conceal failures in service delivery? As always happened in towns which used to have the plague, they went to great lengths to conceal it because if people discovered it, that was bad for their trade; naturally, no one much felt like trading there.
In the case of in-house bids, is there any problem about them having superior information? In cases of IT, let us suppose that the firm which bids successfully is an IT firm. It will have a financial incentive to use its own equipment but, of course, there will be a problem of computer compatibility because it will need to have access to other parts of the DSS service. It will need to have access to the central DSS records, to the national insurance computer, and in the case of child benefit, to the national insurance contributions records. If the profit incentive to use its own equipment conflicts with the incentive to have compatibility of computers, I see that there could be a problem. There could also be a problem with the CSA in terms of gaining access to highly confidential and extremely sensitive records.
I am concerned that there should be an incentive to effectiveness as well as to efficiency. The conventional answer has always been that regulation will meet this point. That conventional answer is centuries old but has usually failed. Take, for example, the 17th century provision of saltpetre. That used to be privately carried out for profit. As saltpetre results from urine there was always a great temptation to dig right round and even under or in occupied dwellings. There was no end of regulation to control that but despite all the regulation a saltpetre firm was once discovered, which, by its own confession, was digging underneath a church because it said that the "longsomeness" of the service and the women pissing in their seats made the most excellent saltpetre. The House of Commons was not impressed. It took the House of Commons to put the matter right, not a commercial incentive. That makes again the basic point about accountability.
Incidentally, we should not let go without question the claim that private firms are always more efficient. The efficiency unit has recently cast doubt on this. It suggests that there may be more conflict at the interface between service users and the provider, and that that may create costs which are not included in the calculation. Therefore I do not concede ex hypothesi that
850
private firms are always more efficient. But even if I did, they need to be effective as well. Regulation, which is meant to work, tends to conflict with freedom to manage and tends to interfere with business autonomy. It is not always very effective. I was distressed to learn of the suggestion that the Government might privatise the adjudication of the Benefits Agency medical service. Justice and profit are like oil and water; they really do not mix. The Minister cannot be certain that any attempt to mix them would not fall foul of judicial review as being in breach of the principles of natural justice by creating a possibility of being judge and party in their own cause. I hope that matter has been given thought.
Decisions on entitlement should not be made for financial reasons. We are here dealing with a right, like the right to vote. One would not wish to have decisions such as whether to provide remote rural polling stations made on grounds of commercial interest. Accountability, which is the subject of this Motion, because it is the most particular parliamentary concern, raises the question: shall we have a sight of the contract before it is signed, all considerations of commercial confidentiality notwithstanding? If not, I do not see how we can judge whether it is in the public interest. Where both public money and citizens' rights are concerned, I think we must make a judgment. Will the private firm be accountable to Parliament for failure to deliver the basic service through the Secretary of State? Will it be accountable for decisions on its staffing levels, and will those be judged on grounds of efficiency, or of effectiveness, or both? That is an area where there may be an acute conflict.
A contract, of course, can hold people accountable only in those criteria which have been foreseen. How are they to be held accountable for a failure of service we have not foreseen? How can the Secretary of State be accountable where he does not have control? How can the business be private if he has control? I hope the Minister has answers to those questions. I shall listen to them with interest.
Another criterion is that I do not think we can privatise anything which is a natural monopoly, or which cannot be allowed to go bankrupt. Those two relate closely, as the case of Eurostar topically illustrates. I do not see how there can be competition in the delivery of benefit. There is in the most literal sense a captive market. I do not know what would happen if the firm undertaking the service went bankrupt. I should be glad to know whether there are some answers to that point.
I should like to know whether we can have transparency in the financial provisions. Again, we have here a long-term problem. In the days of the first Earl of Salisbury, a man of affairs once wrote to him explaining that he had discovered some Crown land valued at £600 which was worth £6,000, and if Salisbury would allow him to buy it from the Crown, he could then re-sell it at enormous profit and he would go halves with Salisbury in the profit. Salisbury being a prudent man did not answer that letter—or, at least if he did, no answer survives. However, that possibility of conflict of interest still remains. In the case of the PSA,

851
it was sold for £11.4 million and resold for £70 million. In a case of profits so immense, one wonders whether it had been a sale at an under value. Where there is a sale at an under value, one always wants to know whether there had been any financial interest in making the sale to that particular person. The question may turn out to be a complete mare's nest, but it is only if we are allowed to ask it that we can stop being suspicious. I beg to move.
Moved, to resolve, That the proposed sale of Department of Social Security benefit offices shall not proceed until the House is satisfied that adequate arrangements are in place to preserve ministerial accountability for the delivery of benefits.—(Earl Russell.)
8.7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, I shall speak briefly as my noble friend has, as always, outlined the points with considerable clarity and in detail. We are dealing with the Government's privatisation of their social security benefit offices where some of their most basic services are delivered. If that estate is not run properly, the delivery of basic benefits to the most vulnerable in our society may well be endangered. That is essentially what we are concerned with today. The Motion asks for parliamentary accountability as regards the delivery of benefits. If the service breaks down due to a lack of maintenance of the estate—I believe noble Lords in all parts of the House agree that this service is essential—something which is essential to a civilised society in this age will no longer function.
There is a belief that a service can be delivered more efficiently by the private sector. However, in believing that, we make a series of assumptions. First, we believe that the private firm knows more about the service. As has already been pointed out, the private firm will be dealing with what is to it a new area of activity where there is no natural competition. No one other than the Government will pay state benefits. Thus we shall have a private firm operating under a monopoly. There must be parliamentary scrutiny and accountability of that. Someone must supervise this service.
I believe the noble Earl referred to Drake chasing after the Spanish Armada for private gain. I believe I heard someone on the Government Front Bench whisper, "Yes, but he won". He won because the wind dispersed the fleet. If we are waiting for a fair wind to guarantee victory, I suggest that we are taking more risks than we should with a fundamental structure of our society.
8.9 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, has done the House a service in tabling this Motion. I can speak briefly because the noble Earl has covered the ground well. I shall ask a number of similar questions although I shall perhaps adopt a slightly different approach. A number of the questions will be fairly technical and the Minister may wish to write to me and place a copy of his reply in the Library. That might save the time of the House.
852
The Motion refers to the sale of DSS offices. I presume that that also involves the possibility of the privatisation of the administration and facilities management. In regard to the PRIME project it will be helpful if the Minister can tell the House exactly what the situation is now. I understand that the bidding has been reduced to three consortia which are to be considered. Will the Minister confirm that one, Nomura International, was involved in the successful bid for the sale of MoD married quarters?
What is the structure of the proposed sale? Is it to be the sale of freeholds, leaseholds, or both? As the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, will know, I am involved in discussions regarding the privatisation of ADAS and in that case research farms. In that case it is entirely clear that the Government are to retain the freehold and are selling only the leasehold. Will the Minister give the same sort of detail?
Is the money that is to come from the PRIME project capital money up-front or are there savings in the running costs which are built into the equation? I understand that the department spends £160 million a year in rent. Is that all to go to outside owners, or will some of the rent be transferred internally so that the money is kept in the public sector? What is the structure of the sale, and how will it affect the PRIME project? Is it a matter of straight sale and leaseback of the properties? Are facilities and management involved or, above all, is any shift proposed in the administration of the benefits? Already the administration of child benefit has been put out to tender and one asks why. The cost of the administration of child benefit is only two per cent. of the total bill, compared with 61 per cent. for the administrative cost of the Social Fund.
Given that example, we have to be concerned about questions of confidentiality. How would such matters as collecting from the Post Office be affected? All those matters knock on to the privatisation of the DSS estate and the potential privatisation of the administration of benefit.
We have the example of the privatisation of housing benefit administration in Croydon, Bromley and Wandsworth. A three-year contract was let under BET to run the back offices of the Benefits Agency in Lancashire and Cumbria. I am sure the Minister is aware of the consultant's report, prepared early this year, on the operation of that contract. The report stated:
"BET's brief was to handle typing, open the mail, run the messenger service, ensure stationery supplies were up to demand and operate security for the agencies and the Agency's branches across the region".
The report concluded that the result was a disaster. The Benefits Agency was left without stationery and last September BET failed to meet up to 43 per cent. of the targets set for opening the post from claimants. That is why there is concern when there is an attempt to privatise the administration of benefit. If we set against that the proposals to put out to tender the most efficient part of the Benefits Agency, the administration of child benefit, the Minister will see why we are concerned.
Another important point in relation to the transfer of facilities management as well as property relates to arrangements for staff who are transferred. Is there any

853
question of a dowry, as in other privatisation, to cover the pensions, employment contracts and so on? What happens in relation to access to offices for benefit claimants? And there is the point, made extremely well by the noble Earl: who will decide on closures? That is very important for benefit claimants, who will not have the money to travel a long distance. Who will have the final decision on the closures of benefit offices, which are part of the prime project?
I believe a figure of £3 billion has been mentioned, defined as the present net value over 25 years. As I asked before, what proportion will be upfront? What does that mean in terms of initial receipts in proportionate terms as compared to the long-run receipts?
We had the experience of the Bill that dealt with the PFI in the health service. The Government needed an Act of Parliament to put right a glaring anomaly regarding the financial security of the trust hospitals involved in the PFI. Let us suppose that there was a massive shift in the way that DSS benefits are administered, not in the ownership of the administration but in the manner in which benefits are administered. Let us suppose, for instance, that there is an enormous shift in information technology. What happens then to the contracts for the offices? Can the leases be assigned? Who has the final decision? Are they returned to the Government if they are no longer required?
We in the Labour Party are keen to see the efficient administration of the benefit offices, which will lead to an improved service to benefit claimants. There are areas of concern. They include the protection of individual personal information; the future of staff transferred to the private sector; and the potential closure of offices in outlying regions. What provision have the Government made for the protection of personal information when the transfer to the private sector of the ownership and management of offices is completed? To repeat the point made by the noble Earl, will the Minister confirm that he will remain accountable to the House for any breach of confidentiality concerning information on individuals.
The Minister has special responsibility for pensions. I wonder whether he can help the House in regard to the story that appeared in the press today. This is not the time or place to go into a great debate about it; however, I am sure it would help the House, since we are discussing the accountability of Ministers, if he could give any indication of the true figure for the future savings that have been suggested in the way in which war pensions are handled. What are the total costs of the adjustments, which are colloquially known as sweeteners? All that will have to be done in the PES round and the Red Book figures. Some sort of calculation must have been made. I heard the exchanges at Prime Minister's Question Time in the other place today. The Prime Minister did not seem disposed to say what the correct figures are. However, I am sure that the Minister, who has special responsibility for pensions, will be able to share the correct figures with the House. If the figures quoted in the Guardian are wrong, perhaps he will tell us what are the correct figures.
854
At the end of the day the debate is about the efficient administration of benefits and the best way to deal with claimants, and particularly with poverty. We know that one child in three is now born to a family receiving benefit. We can all swap statistics on that matter. The other day I heard a graphic illustration of what is happening in some of the most deprived areas of our country. The story was told by Mr Frank Field, MP, who is perhaps one of our most radical thinkers on welfare. It concerned a school in his constituency. As we know, he represents a very deprived area. He said that he was used to entering that school a few years ago and asking the children what their ambition was. He would receive the usual stories: they wanted to be a hairdresser, a bus driver, an engine driver or whatever. He said that he recently went into the same school and asked children of 11 or 12 the same question. There was a sullen silence, until one lad perked up and said, "My ambition is to get my giro". That boy was aged 12. I wonder how that situation will be helped by the privatisation of the DSS estate and the administration of benefits and facilities management.
8.18 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Social Security (Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish): My Lords, this has been a fairly astonishing debate for a number of reasons, not least the fact that it has ranged a great deal wider than the Motion on the Order Paper and the subject of the buildings, the estate, occupied by the Benefits Agency.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, raised the subject of war pensions and the amazing article in the Guardian this morning. The paper cobbled together in a fairly random way from some leaked information a story with very little foundation. A great deal of it was downright untrue. I had a meeting this morning, arranged many months ago, with the central advisory committee of all the organisations representing war pensioners. We had a perfectly satisfactory meeting. We discussed a letter I had sent to them on 26th November—which hardly needed the Guardian to leak it—and also discussed some changes in medical opinion regarding deafness. We had a thoroughly amicable, sensible and businesslike meeting. At the end, the members there expressed their unanimous condemnation of the Guardian for publishing the leaked information; and there was unanimous support for the procedures that I had used in bringing these matters to their attention and the way I discussed the matters with them. That was the correct and appropriate place—the central advisory committee of the war pensions bodies.
I turn to this debate, which is equally remarkable. If noble Lords had been listening, they would have been led to the conclusion that the Benefits Agency owned all its property. I have news for the noble Earl. It is uncharacteristic of him to be so fundamentally flawed in his basic argument. The Benefits Agency does not own all its property—far from it. The department owns only 22 per cent. of the buildings it occupies at the moment. So the private sector appears in the noble

855
Earl's view to be pernicious, evil and untrustworthy, but it already owns three-quarters of the properties we occupy.
Earl Russell: My Lords, may I ask the Minister to withdraw the charge that I said that the private sector was pernicious and untrustworthy? I merely attempted to assess in what circumstances it was suitable to have it involved. That is a very different question.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I am always puzzled at some of the interpretations the noble Earl puts on his remarks and the interpretations that I put on them. He appeared to say that the private sector was not a fit organisation to own the property we use. If that is not what his speech was all about, then I listened in vain. I failed miserably to understand what he was saying.
Earl Russell: My Lords, perhaps I may assist the Minister. I was trying to assess whether or not it would be out of its element.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, it is not out of its element. It already owns three-quarters of the property we occupy. That is the fundamental flaw beneath the whole of the noble Earl's argument today. He seemed to me to postulate his whole argument on the basis that we own all our property. We do not. As I explained, we own 22 per cent. of the buildings. The principle remains the same. I shall come to the details about owning, renting and how we shall proceed, but operational matters are the responsibility of chief executives. They remain accountable to Ministers, who are accountable to Parliament for all aspects of performance. My accountability and that of my colleagues is not just for the 22 per cent. we own but for 100 per cent. of the estate, including the 78 per cent. which we do not own but rent from the private sector. Ministers have been involved in every stage of the projects and we are accountable for the final decision.
It might be helpful to the noble Earl if I try to explain exactly what we are attempting to do. The objectives of project PRIME (an acronym for the Private Sector Resource Initiative for Management of the Estate) are to meet the business needs of the Department of Social Security estate at a lower cost. In particular, we need to ensure sufficient flexibility to meet the changing needs of the business; to remove the burden of surplus space; to provide a capital development programme and to involve private sector expertise and investment in the ownership and management of the estate. Particular emphasis will be placed on the transfer of risk. That will allow the department simply to be an occupier of the space it needs to deliver its core business.
We are talking about the estate, not at all about the delivery of benefits. We are also talking about the services surrounding the provision of that estate. The Department of Social Security now has the largest civil estate in government, equivalent to one of the largest property companies in the UK. It covers nearly 2 million square metres in over 700 buildings of varying size, spread throughout England, Scotland and
856
Wales, with major concentrations in Leeds, Newcastle, Fylde and central London. But we only own the freehold on 38 per cent. of the total space, or 22 per cent. of the buildings. The rest is leasehold accommodation, with many leases of a modern nature, typically with a five-year rent review. So some of our tenancies come up for review all the time. It is not a new problem for the department. We are well aware of it and deal with it. No one has found that a problem. Some are historic leases with an extended review pattern.
We have over 300 different landlords. As many noble Lords know, the existing estate consists mainly of traditional office buildings—far too many, I regret to say, built in the 1960s when I would not have given too many prizes for architectural design. Our buildings vary in age and size and are not always located in the best place for the public. The cost of maintaining our portfolio is large. Market rental is £160 million per annum. In 1995-96 we spent £80 million on capital works, £50 million on building management, £85 million on total facilities management and £41 million on rates. The mixture of freehold and leasehold accommodation also means that opportunities to change the estate to meet business needs are very much tied to the state of the market, the timing of lease breaks and availability of capital.
Over the past 20 years or so, the rate of disposal of surplus accommodation has not kept pace with the improvements that have been made to the efficiency of the department through changes in business processes and rapid development in information technology. That is not unique to the public sector. It is true across the whole service industry. The result is that the taxpayer is funding over 100,000 square metres of vacant space.
Perhaps I may illustrate the point. The DSS office at Acton in north London has 31,000 square metres of surplus space. That is bigger than the Home Office building in Queen Anne's Gate. The Five Ways site in Birmingham has 19,000 square metres of surplus space, 45 per cent. of the total. Heron House in Reading, with 5,000 square metres, has been completely empty for some years. I saw at the benefits office in Shetland that the bottom floor was empty and was not necessary for our requirements. That cannot be acceptable.
The department therefore undertook a feasibility study which reported in May this year. The study showed that there was potential to move from direct responsibility for management of our estate to buying serviced accommodation from the private sector in line with our business needs. The study found that there was a clear market interest for such a deal—one which is not a traditional sale and leaseback but a major private finance initiative involving related facilities management services and appropriate risk transfer.
We have already started this process with the award of a contract for our estate in Newcastle, where a private sector consortium, the Newcastle Estate Partnership, is currently drawing up detailed plans for a new estate using the private finance initiative. The project which I announced on 20th June will provide modern serviced office accommodation for 11,000 staff in the area under a 25-year contract. The private sector partner will

857
construct and maintain the new estate for this period. Surplus land will be used for a variety of commercial ventures, including retail, housing and a hotel leisure complex.
Noble Lords who know what the accommodation is like on the Longbenton estate in Newcastle will echo the words I used when I went there in June. I said that it was not a moment too soon to move our staff out of the old wartime accommodation into modern, properly serviced office accommodation. The scheme in Newcastle will allow us to improve our accommodation while harnessing the skills and expertise of the private sector in a long-term partnership arrangement.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked a number of questions about such projects. When it comes to the maintenance and facilities management services used in the projects, the facilities management services related to the accommodation are included in the reference bid which is required. Much of the facilities management has already been subject to market testing and is managed through private sector contracts in many areas. But no benefit delivery or administration is included in that. It is envisaged that certain staff delivering maintenance and facilities management services will transfer under TUPE regulations, but it will be left to the bidders to make proposals in those areas.
The noble Lord, Lord Carter, mentioned the BET project in Lancashire. He is quite right that the contract did not work well in the beginning. However, I am happy to say that it is working a great deal better now, following discussions with the company. It is meeting its requirements and we are reasonably satisfied that, after bedding down time, it is giving us the service we require.
The aim of social security is to deliver a high quality service more efficiently. That has to be right for our customers and taxpayers. It is not necessarily organised in a way that suits the department. We wish to organise it in a way that suits our customers. Increasingly, our customers wish to talk to us by letter and telephone, and we want to use all the advantages of IT and streamlining of operations which we believe modern management techniques can bring.
The introduction of the Jobseekers' Allowance has had a significant effect on our business, in that the JSA is, in the main, available from over 1,000 jobcentres across the country. As I said, many of our customers, instead of having to go to the jobcentre as they once did and then go to the benefits agency, have to go only to the jobcentre. I think that that is a major improvement in the service that we give to people rather than asking them to go from one office to the other.
As I mentioned, the increased use of the telephone, which we have already seen, will have an impact on the number of people who currently need to call at DSS offices. Our National Customer Survey has consistently found that a significant number of our customers prefer to carry out their business on the telephone or by post. While that is a general finding and cannot be applied in every locality, it will be one of the factors that we take into account when assessing the suitability of an office for closure.
858
We still envisage a large number of offices across the country, but opportunities through the change programme and other developments, such as the roll-out of the benefit payment card, will mean changes to our total estate. The new IT strategy will have at its heart a single source of uniform customer information. That will be underpinned by computer systems in front line offices that give much more flexibility to organise in a more efficient way. Our review of income support has also shown considerable scope for greater efficiency by reorganising the processing, and cutting out clerical work and duplication.
I mentioned the benefit payment card. One of the reasons why many people call at their DSS office is because of the current system of delivering benefit—the Giro cheque which goes missing or does not appear in time. These things will be behind us when we go to the payment card in the later years of this decade. So there are considerable changes that will happen in the demand for Benefit Agency services out there by the public.
I expect the number of staff to reduce over coming years and flexibility in accommodation usage will be crucial to maximising opportunities for reducing the cost to taxpayers. Of course, the Benefits Agency is not just the front-of-house that delivers the benefit. In fact, it is largely made up of the back-of-house which administers systems and does not deal directly with the public. As I said, we already have considerable empty space when it comes to many of these things.
The DSS agencies have therefore reviewed in detail their estates strategies. They have been asked to identify three things: core, flexible and surplus buildings. We believe that this system will provide the flexibility for managers to commit under PRIME only to accommodation which meets business need and to continue to plan flexibly.
I should stress that PRIME is designed to make the management of our estate as efficient as possible, at a time when, quite rightly, the expenditure of public funds is under very close examination, while at the same time the management of PRIME will be supporting our ability to deliver a high level of service to all our customers.
The business case for the project has identified significant opportunities for efficiencies. When I was asked about this matter I was asked where the profit would come from. We believe that there are such opportunities. First, there is the perfectly clear one through the private sector's ability to use the surplus space far better than we can do. We are not—I hope that the noble Earl agrees—in the business of being an estate agent and being out and looking for customers for our empty space. Our business is to deliver benefits to the people who need them. So that is the first thing: the transfer of surplus space to the private sector.
Secondly, there is simply the commercial management of flexible space, as I mentioned. Then there are development opportunities that can arise from some of the properties. There are cost reductions in the provision of services and potential for private sector capital investment. There is also a reduction in the

859
overall costs of occupation to us. Those will allow managers to concentrate on their core business, which is running a social security system.
So we expect to make significant savings in the costs of our accommodation services, partly through lower ongoing service charges and partly through securing an immediate payment of £250 million, reflecting the value of the assets being transferred. That probably answers one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Carter. The requirement for an initial payment simplifies the bidding process and reduces the financial risk to government over the lifetime of the contract. In effect, we shall have taken some of the value of the estate as the up-front capital payment and the balance in lower service charges over the lifetime of the contract.
We are currently in talks with a shortlist of three consortia. I do not want to reveal exactly all the things that we hope to gain from them in terms of running costs savings. That would not be a wise thing to do in a negotiation. The objective is to meet the business needs of the department from its estate at lower cost.
So the project has reached the stage where there are three shortlisted consortia which have been accepted to respond to the invitation to negotiate. I announced the three shortlisted bidders on 1st November. They are: Partnership Property Management Ltd; Mapeley Holdings Ltd; and Opus. Perhaps I can say to the noble Lord, Lord Carter, that Nomura is one of the partners in Opus.
The DSS is retaining the interest of major investors by ensuring that the procurement process is seen to be purposeful and serious. A preferred supplier will be selected in March 1997 and a contract completed by September 1997. The duration of the main contract will be 20 years, with the necessary mechanisms in place within it to ensure continuing competitiveness and value for money during that time. I can say to the noble Earl that Ministers will make the final decision. The National Audit Office, as is its practice, will review these decisions on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee.
The noble Earl and the noble Lord, Lord Carter, asked me about office closures, and perhaps I may say a few words about that matter. Department managers are constantly looking at ways in which we can rationalise our estate as the opportunity arises. As I said a little time ago, most of our space is occupied for administration and backroom processing. Indeed, the major concentrations of accommodation in Leeds, Newcastle and Fylde are only used for that purpose. In future, we want sufficient flexibility to allow managers the option of separating processing from public caller facilities, where that is more cost-effective and delivers a quality service to the public. It also provides the opportunity to examine how best to meet the needs of customers in the light of latest developments.
Managers are compiling estates strategies which identify buildings that will be required long term (more than 15 years) and flexible buildings that may not be required for more than five years. The private sector supplier will not be able to dispose of buildings unless business needs continue to be met and the department shares in any benefit—for example, from development opportunities.
860
In every case where an office is identified as a candidate for closure on business grounds, a comprehensive examination of the potential impact on customer service is undertaken, which includes wide consultation with local MPs, staff and customer representative groups. Indeed, in cases where a closure is identified as being potentially controversial, ministerial approval is required before the office can be closed, so that individual representations and any particular problems can be examined individually. That will continue to be the case once PRIME is implemented.
In conclusion, the PRIME project is a major initiative to remove the burden to taxpayers of surplus space and to avoid a repetition in the future by ensuring sufficient flexibility to meet changing needs. It will bring private sector expertise to bear in driving out efficiency savings and in maximising development opportunities, which will benefit both the department and the supplier.
These activities will be undertaken within a long-term contractual framework which will continue to ensure that the department is in control of decisions taken, that options must achieve our core business objectives, including meeting customer needs, and that value for money is proven on a continuing basis. At all times, ministerial accountability for the delivery of benefits will be maintained.
I hope particularly by that last sentence that I have allayed some of the fears of the noble Earl.
8.39 p.m.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. I must make my apologies to him as I was not able to give him earlier notice of the main lines of the speech that I intended to make. That, I must confess, was because I had not fully worked them out until it was too late to give the Minister notice.
Perhaps I may begin at the point at which the Minister ended: the accountability for the delivery of benefit. I am extremely grateful for what he said but will we be able to ask questions about such matters as staffing levels? Are we going to be able to ask about individual closures? I am pleased to see the Minister nod. He stresses the existence of a contractual framework. Are we in Parliament going to be able to see that contractual framework and decide whether or not we approve its content? If the Minister were able to answer that it would assist me greatly.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I realise that I was speaking fairly quickly. If the noble Earl reads Hansard tomorrow, he will see that I answered his question by saying that Ministers will make the decisions, but the National Audit Office will review those decisions on behalf of the Public Accounts Committee. By that route there is parliamentary accountability.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I heard the Minister say that. I thought I heard a silence and now he assures me that I did hear a silence. A matter of parliamentary concern arises in that regard and it may be a matter for further thought.

861
At one point in the Minister's speech I became extremely confused about what exactly he was saying. It concerned the control of delivery of benefit. I take his point about the department not owning all its estate. I was perfectly aware of that. I was not, in the first instance, interested in estate management, but in the delivery of benefits. I believe I repeat the Minister's words correctly when he said that they were dealing with "services surrounding the estate". I am not clear what he meant by those words. He referred also to "buying serviced accommodation". Again, I am not sure what those words mean. Is the Minister attempting to give me a categorical assurance that the delivery of benefit will remain under the direct control of the DSS and not under the control of any private sector contractor? If so, it would assist me materially.
Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish: My Lords, I do not want to keep jumping up and down. The prime project relates to the estate ownership and the estate management facility. That goes into facility management; for example, the maintenance of the buildings. It can go into things like opening post and so forth, as it already does, in many cases perfectly
862
satisfactorily. The question of delivering the benefits themselves has nothing to do with the prime project; it has to do entirely with estate management.
Earl Russell: My Lords, I am extremely pleased to hear that. But I am not the only person by a long way to whom that point has not been clear. I am glad that it is clear now. I hope that it will enable a service delivery to continue on an acceptable basis.
The issue of accountability versus commercial confidentiality, on the other hand, is one which stretches a great deal wider than this debate. On that I am not convinced that I have had any satisfactory answers. I would have been surprised if I had. That is a matter about which we will all need to think further.
I will read what the Minister said extremely carefully, but I heard a few silences. I heard a silence on the question of incentives to effectiveness. Again, I hope to hear more on that on a future occasion. But that is all that it is worth saying at this moment. I beg leave to withdraw the Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.
House adjourned at sixteen minutes before nine o'clock.

  Great Lakes Area, Africa: Refugee Numbers
  Great Lakes Area, Africa: Refugee Numbers
  Road Accident Victims' Claims: Accelerated Procedures
  Road Accident Victims' Claims: Accelerated Procedures
  Private Sector Housing Renewal
  Private Sector Housing Renewal
  Immigration and Asylum Statistics
  Immigration and Asylum Statistics
  CAP Reform
  CAP Reform
  Human Suspected Adverse Reactions to Veterinary Medicine
  Human Suspected Adverse Reactions to Veterinary Medicine
  National Teacher Training Curriculum
  National Teacher Training Curriculum